Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive411

Resolved

 –

WP:OTRS, Tiptoety ^talk

21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.173.116 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You will need your network administrator, or school to official contact

OTRS. Tiptoety ^talk

00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant harassment, personal attacks, and stalking by repeat offender.

Resolved

User:Shabiha is not a stranger to this board. This person has previously been warned by site admins and was also issued a temporary block for insulting me on my talk page without provocation. This did not stop them from actually using the same insult again right here on the noticeboard.
Recently, this person has now been

I see edit warring and POV edit summaries on both sides, but nothing that is really a personal attack. FayssalF has already appropriately warned both parties, and protected some of the articles. DGG (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like consensus supported at least one removal by the reported party. Rudget (Help?) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MM has now posted on my talk page that he is satisfied, and does not want to pursue this--and promises to pay attention to the advice & warnings. DGG (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling it done then (or at least done here on this page...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – protected for a week to muffle an unseemly melee --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough with it, the page changes by the second. The allegations of suicide should be removed as the body isn't cold yet ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey

emacsuser (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, user has returned, via multiple socks, after over a year, attacking the same articles & editors. Several admins refused to re-instate him/her after wikistalking, personal & racist attacks, etc, but there is question as to whether he is subject to a permanent ban, as likely he should be (currently tagged as such). Current suspected socks listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th) (backlog). I would appreciate clarification and action, if deemed necessary, on this issue. Thanks, -RoBoTam^ice 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

and for reporting him and reverting disruptive edits, more wikistalking here.

Theres an edit war in the Top scorers section at this page. If youll enter the UEFA site you'll se Pogribnyak is first and has 11, and Toni is second with 10. Nevertheless, i'm being reverted. Since this season UEFA also countes the gouals from the early stages, otherwise Pogrebnyak and Toni would both have 10 goals. On the

P.S. The users who decided it contribute alot to Wikipedia and therefore i belive that what they need is an explanation and no harsh should be done. Shpakovich (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shpakovich, please read

of where you've posted this. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko}

) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Tachyonbursts topic-banned from anything related to 9/11 for 1 month by Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) under the terms of the 9/11 ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally on

I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an embittered, smear crusade accusing anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what VegitaU has said. Tachyonbursts appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with — BQZip01 —, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --Tarage (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself: ([4]) -- VegitaU (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's pretty clear that

talk

) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RxS, I'm not sure what are you talking about, but I'm sure that I've seen (the pattern behind the) rise and fall of the user you've mentioned above. Do say; are these sorts of unfounded allegations acceptable? What sort of conduct you're expecting in return. Honestly.

talk) —Preceding comment

was added at 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that his account is recently created and has almost singularly focused on the September 11 attacks article or users editing that article. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of banned 9/11 editors that might create a sock to edit this article. But that's sort of beside the point. It's this user's contribs that matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing he's a sock; RxS is welcome to present any evidence he has. I'm just remarking this user has focused exclusively on this and it might be useful to

topic ban this user for a short while. See if he moves on to something else (besides accusations of government propaganda). -- VegitaU (talk

) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, I don't think it's beside the point at all...when an editor is blocked for disruption it's relevant if he just comes back with another account. I'd add

talk

) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick comparison doesn't show an obvious correspondence between Tachyonbursts and NuclearUmpf. At the moment I find more concern with Tachyonburst's conduct as such. Edits like this[5] seem awfully

WP:POINTy. Raymond Arritt (talk

) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've formally notified him of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which I believe were intended to curb things like disruptive single-purpose accounts on these articles. If he continues to behave problematically, then it can go to

WP:AE or you can ask an admin to look at it under the umbrella of the 9/11 ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk

16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Admin: I believe this issue has been

resolved. If you could put the proper template on this discussion, I can get this page off my watchlist. Thank you. -- VegitaU (talk

) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tachyonbursts, I think one of the biggest issues we have is your attitude. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but you come across as very confrentational in your edits. I hope I am not assuming bad faith by saying that. I'm trying to work with you on this issue, but you have to meet me and the rest of us half way. If you have a problem with the way something is worded, first check the archives, because most of what is said has been gone over many times and consensus has been reached to the best of our ability. The other thing I can sugest is to cite RS from the beginning. Simply saying "This is wrong, fix it" does not help us determine if there actually is a problem, of if it is your oppinion there is a problem. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but VegitaU, one has been through all the archives, since the beginning of the test, so to say, I already have a final response for you, if you want to make it final. It has been written. That sentence above is as clear as clear one could be. One cannot choose for you, you choose as a whole.

I'm sorry, I understand that this can be as silly as those popular references are, but this was far more than I'm allowed to go. You were given an organon long time ago. We can wait no more. Please decide, will you allow the questioning (discussion, that is) or are you ready to wrap things up. Simple yes or no will do. Thanks.

I'm not sure I entirly understand what you are trying to say. If you are asking that editors take your objections into concideration, of course. I can't speak for other users, but I will always try to listen to the other side, even if I don't agree with it. I admit, I haven't been this way in the past, but I would dearly love to avoid continuing down that path. The main problem, however, is repetativeness. Just because I am willing to hear all sides doesn't mean I haven't heard it before. And unfortionatly, many of the debates we are currently having have already been fleshed out in the archives. However, if you have some new information in the form of RS, or have noticed something that hasn't been talked about, by all means. This is an open encyclopedia after all. But the biggest change I can sugest is civility. I'm doing my best to remain calm, and restratin myself from making persional/sarcastic remarks. If we all do this, we'll be a lot better off. --Tarage (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

24 hours it is.

Note that pursuant to the 9/11 ArbCom case and the accompanying discretionary sanctions, Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) has topic-banned Tachyonbursts from anything related to 9/11, loosely construed, through May 30. For the record, I fully support this action, as this is exactly the sort of behavior that the ArbCom sanctions were meant to curb. MastCell ^Talk 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the time?

talk

) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit more than 2 hours, what will it be?

talk

) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What will what be, what happens in 2 hours?

talk

) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Think of our last encounters as you'd think of Arbcom. My job here is done; I'll respect your decisions as you will ours. You are as free as you've decided to be.

I've never done this before, so I may not be in the right place. We have an anon that wants Savant syndrome to reflect his/her particular bias. This is nothing unusual, and was addressed by semi-protecting the article for two weeks (until 06-May-2008). The anon refuses to engage in discussions, despite repeated requests on the anon's talk page. Again, this is nothing unusual, especially for an article in this subject area. However, I'm really unhappy about yesterday's talk page vandalism, which involves changing other editors' remarks and questions on the articles talk pages into glowing praise of the anon. This is clearly unacceptable. What is a reasonable response? Should we semiprotect the talk page? Should we block the IP address (likely a computer at school)? Is there another solution? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the newest IP address, and will monitor the page for any future disruptions. Doesn't require semi-protecting right now... seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP that has been all over the Savant pages; blocking won't help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that one, WhatamIdoing. OK, this has had a couple of AN/I threads, Jfdwolff has intervened several times, but this altering of past editor comments for deceptive purposes takes it to another level. There are two editors (who are friends) and two IPs, one Comcast, the other Utah Educational Network, one edits during Utah daytime, the other in the evening, they're also working on Kim Peek who is a Mormon savant. This has gone on long enough and has been disruptive enough that it now needs a checkuser. I've never done one before, and will be out all afternoon, but I'll muddle my way through the instructions at checkuser later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful for someone's help with Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association. JCeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and an IP, 66.93.111.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (both presumably someone at the organization itself) has added back what appears to be copyvio text that I deleted. I do not want to get into an edit war or risk a 3RR sanction. This may be pigheadedness rather than actual vandalism, but the end result is much the same. I think that the old version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Protection_Programs_Participants%27_Association&oldid=209380065 (which includes references) is more appropriate than the current version. --Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the copyvio and left a second warning for the IP, asking to discuss the matter before they re-add anything to the article. Some of that information may be useful as background, but it can't be added verbatim, as both the IP and the user have done. Though the connection between the two appears obvious, I'll add that JCeph and the IP have not been editing together; the IP started in when JCeph stopped. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May be a simple case of forgetting to log in. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

looks like this user promotes a company, has bot warning about ads and one of his/her spam articles was removed. see contribs. not sure if it's really spam...pls investigate admins. thx. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very prolific if this is the case. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do I really have to read uncivil profonity on my talk page. Especially by one editor ChrisNelson who has been banned before? I work hard, follow the rules and get abused. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You may remove or delete anything from your talkpage that you want, so far as such removals do not distort or change others comments in a disruptive manner. Feel free to archive or remove anything you like. See

WP:USERPAGE for more info. You may also wish to create an account, as membership has its privileges. Good luck.--Jayron32.talk.contribs

00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Membership also has its problems. I will do as you suggest, and remove the profanity, but what I was looking for is someone in authority to "cool down" chrisnelson and yankees10. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mate everyone is in authority here. An admin is just another editor who was handed a mop. They handle what we those without the mop can not handle. I will warn the user if he continues and then if needed report to

WP:AIV or here. Though I am looking at his conversation and seeing that he is just pointing out truths..though with an over use of profanity. Rgoodermote

  02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – school, stale vandal Toddst1 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

206.213.170.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently vandalized the CSI: Miami page, and upon checking I found that this person has repeatedly vandalized pages with irrelevent, sometimes racist and profane comments. They have also been warned repeatedly, and apparently continue to vandalize as no action to block them has actually been carried out.

I am not a brand new user, but I am still learning about Wikipedia and am unsure how to deal with this other than reporting it here. I hope I am doing this correctly.

May I politely request that an administrator (and yes, I understand you are all busy) investigate this issue and block this person if they feel it is necessary. I personally feel a half dozen "final warnings" are about four too many. Thank you very much. Bloopenguins Bloo (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention them here. You'll get a faster response. HalfShadow (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a school. There are likely different people every hour. This one's actually not so bad, only two instances today. -- Avi (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edit was about 12 hours ago anyway. The trail is too cold to smack 'em. School-IPs tend to be a pain, though. If it starts up again, mention it's a school; they often get longer locks because they're a school. HalfShadow (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kolkhianboy wages an endless edit war on the Laz people article, removing reliable and sourced information. He ignores requests to explain his edits and several warnings on his talk page. He repeatedly leaves offending messages on my talk page and on User talk:Iberieli, full of ethnic insults and accusations of "fascism".[6], [7], [8]. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 11:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The guy's a troll who can barely speak English. I've alerted

Folantin (talk

) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 31 hours by Angus. Let me know if he goes back to the same behaviour after the block and I'll give him a much longer one. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I’ve just come up with user:Aditya Kabir's recent contribution and his misusing of rollback feature. Rollback feature (for non admin) is intended for reverting nonconstructive contributions (

Rollback removed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me if I am wrong. But, both my reverts were part of an ongoing discussion (see

Twinkle, and not rollback (see here). Aditya^{(talk • contribs}

) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK is not to be used for anything other than the most unconstructive edits. If you wish to revert a constructive edit, you should at the very least, leave an edit summary which rollback does not permit you to do. [13] does not appear to be vandalism, no matter whose POV you believe in. Thus the argument of BRD is not applicable here. If you can appreciate the difference, I will not be opposed to any admin re-adding your rollbacker rights. --Rifleman 82 (talk

) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I beileved it was not about POVs. It was about following policy. And, I was under the impression that I was following "Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute" per

WP:EDITWAR, as those particular reverts by User:Blnguyen

, as well as the whole edit blitz, happened in the middle of the discussion without notice. I think the discussion is still continuing. The edit made without an explanatory summary was made under the impression that since the incident was between two editors, and since the issue has been addressed in the discussion, it was not too necessary. The best thing is that the discussion is getting towards a constructive solution.

If I am mistaken, I, of course, am ready to apologize to all parties involved. Unfortunately, the short time of two hours between a notice on my talk page and a removal of the right provided me with no opportunity to clarify in the case of misunderstanding or apologize in the case of a mistake or undo if there was a harm done. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as per the discussions/instructions here and here I understand that rollback is for explicit vandalism/improper humor/edit test and suchlike. For the rest we have Twinkle, and even more appropriately, a simple undo. Did I get it right? This would be easy to remember and stick to. Even if my rights are not reinstated, I apologize to everyone for misunderstanding and inconvenience. Thanks to all who have responded. Cheers.It's always easy to have good humor back when I know exactly what happened. Not knowing is dreadful. Not having a chance to discuss good faith efforts is even more so. Thanks. My day is made already. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, and most importantly Rifleman 82's statement that he would not be adverse to restoration of the tool if an understanind of it's use is given, I have re-enabled rollback. I believe Aditya Kabir now understands what the tool is for. Any misue will see it simply removed again, possibly on a more permanent basis. I am confident this will not happen. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – semi-protectd and major amounts of unsourced material removed

Toddst1 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Halp!

This page needs serious BLP help, there appears to be an edit war going on over there...one party has added "Disclaimer: Please do not attempt to delete or change any content in this page. It would be swiftly replaced back by the author." I don't even know how to separate fact from fiction in this mess. Could someone who's RL job hasn't melted their brain please take a look? :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a mess, you're right. I've removed the disclaimer, and tried to clean it up a little. We'll see what happens. It'll need a lot more work, though, I'll check back in on it later.

Semi-protected the page - it appears that numerous socks are at work here. Warned those recently editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out a couple more sentences of unsourced accusations. More needs doing. It is indeed a mess.

^Sing

04:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out quite a few more unsourced sentences. I think the article complies with

WP:BLP now and I've left a note on the talk page saying BLP will be enforced. Toddst1 (talk

) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

An now they're all gone, with Affinity12 again promising to continue making his changes. I've reverted and warned, I'll let an admin take it from here since I think that's the only way to slow him down. Redrocket (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly concerned about Keithmb's edits on

• He is editing on behalf of the subject, who is not at all computer literate - he seems to me to be a pleasant chap. That does not give him a free pass, of course. I'll email him ad ask him to start discussing on talk pages. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that there also seem to be some fair use problem tags on images used here. Since he is editing for the subject, our fair use rules probably need to be explained in some detail so that he can make the necessary markings here and there to keep the images from being deleted. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've dealt with the images for now. One of them needs to go from the article but which one is a content issue. I've invited him to discuss this on the article talk page.
      talk
      ) 11:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. He's welcome to ask me any questions he might have about editing and references in particular. As for the images those can be hard to figure out when you are new here and he did make an effort to put a fair use rationale on one of them but he is more than welcome to ask me about those too.
    talk
    ) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was hoping someone here could direct me to the right place. I've never known how to deal with disagreements over POV/content if the other side doesn't listen, especially with IP users. In this particular case, 71.135.48.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on removing sourced information. From what I can see, the sources look solid and 71.135.48.155 seems to be POV-pushing. Any advice on how to handle this, both now and in the future? Thanks. erc ^{talk/contribs} 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I cannot advise you on future problems, but may be I can help a bit with your current issue. You know that the burden of proof lies firmly on the shoulders of editors that add or restore content, nothing new for you, right? Now, let's read [[19]]: Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. Would you spend enough time reading the sources to understand if they present the claim as true, or they simply let some talking heads express their (talking heads) story? That may be all it takes. I hope this helps even if a bit. 71.135.48.155 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I might be inclined to reword it as "there have been unreliable allegations...". The allegation seems to have been made, and it appears from the citation that the person making it was some acedemic, possibly one who gets much of his funding by appearing on talk shows or TV news programs. And the quotation in the citation seems to indicate that the entire allegation is nothing more than that, and it is in particular completely unprovable.

On the other hand, I'm not in favor of including stories from News of the World in biographies, and this doesn't seem much different. Loren.wilton (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Emailggg, an SPA, keeps reverting the Elcoteq article to reinsert what seems to be promotional material for the company. I reverted the unsourced stuff that seemed like ad/promo copy [20] and tried to talk to the editor about it on his page [21], and he ignored me to continue his reverts. I'm at my limit on the page, I would appreciate it if someone else would check and see if it seems fishy. Redrocket (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits are blatant spam--I've reverted and added a {{

WP:AIV if need be. --jonny-mt

09:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be bits of information in that spam that could benefit the article, such as the company being global (probably meaning they soource from China). However, it is so buttered over with corporate marketeese that it is hard to believe much of any of it as anything other than puffery and misdirection. Loren.wilton (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

This needs to be dealt will and deleted ASAP: Tyler ford. Noah¢s (Talk) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's gone, and someone has warned the creator. Thanks for spotting it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

A comment would not sum up how weird this one is. Rgoodermote  03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Every bit of Wikipedia text is in italics. Who gets trouted?

Um...what are you talking about...it looks fine on my side. Rgoodermote  03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... OK, apparently it's just me then?

WTF?

t/e

03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree: WTF? Looks fine to me, except that hideous screen shot you just posted. Darkspots (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And back to normal now!

t/e

03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Er...check your internet browser settings..and maybe a couple of scans..because that just isn't right. Um marked resolved. Rgoodermote  03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd just be you, mate. But check your browser settings—trouting your computer can work wonders (though not always the good kind).

H₂O

) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's your monobook? But seriously, let's use that logo for April Fool's next year.-Wafulz (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the logo :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That logo was not on the version that Lawrence uploaded. Someone over-reacted and redacted the logo from his original. See the image history for details. Horologium (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank heavens somebody else thinks that redaction and re-uploading was an over-reaction. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of redaction does leave me kinda speechless. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious over-redaction. Though at first I thought he was trying show us he was seeing a strange logo image. Jonathunder (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a relevant commentary and topical humor on the recent issue of using (or not using) the Wikipedia logo in Wikipedia pages. Plus in this case, the actual logo doesn't really add anything to understanding of the topic, so it's also an example on when removing copyrighted images doesn't hurt. You can point to that the next time you're trying to explain WP:NFCC to someone. - Bobet 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It cracked me up either way! (Thanks for explaining why you did it) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have previously uploaded screenshots of Wikipedia to illustrate technical problems, and they have been deleted under NFCC. It is rather bizarre (to say the least) that one cannot use images of Wikipedia pages on Wikipedia in an attempt to improve Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the extra tools Lawrence is using. They look fascinating! :-) CSD, Last, RPP, XFD, Unlink. Which toolbox is that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be Twinkle, you can get it as a gadget. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Block this user?

Resolved

 – Premature report, even so, AIV is the right venue. Rudget (Help?) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This user may need to be blocked: User:Jaklo24. See his talk page. Noah¢s (Talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the section immediately before this one, the user has been warned and his single edit (the attack page) was deleted. Until they do something more, no block is necessary - they might just stop editing and that's that. If not, now that you've notified us twice, I'm sure there will be plenty of eyes to monitor this user. Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Mentors are discussing ways to improve the behavior of both blocked users.

WP:IPCOLL is the best venue for that since all administrative actions required here in this thread have been taken. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I got an issue that needs inspection on Saeb Erekat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Two editors tag-teaming to edit war a "dispute" tag out of the page even though both are uninvolved in recent discussions and a mediation. One of the two, PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already given a last chance pre-indef block via forced mentorship and also previously noted by one of his multiple previous mentors that "[removal of dispute tags is] usually frowned upon". The other editor's (Rama (talk · contribs)) last contribution on the talk page was in September 2006. PalestineRemembered also repeated the same personal attack that got him a 31 hour block: "01:18, 29 October 2007 GRBerry (requested by mentor)". See: Block recommendation And: Arbcom evidence of WP:HAR. Recent repetition: "After months of harrassment of people on their Talk-Pages, and a block of him..." PalestineRemembered, 16:36, 30 April 2008 And also managed to recently cast a support vote to a permanent ban adding that "It's time this cancer of gang activity was cut out." He also noted there that "There is another top "Palestinian sympathetic" editor I've really wanted to contact but who has been similarly impervious to my advances." (PalestineRemembered) - apparently, User:Rama was not that editor. With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Jaakobou, I don't think the removal of the totally disputed tag was a controversial move by PR. I think there's consensus now for the current version and all editors apart from yourself seem to find it acceptable. Tagging an article as disputed, when there's an overwhelming consensus against that isn't really appropriate. Not a huge fan of Rama rolling you back, I think a manual edit would have been better. If you still have concerns, could you consider bringing them up on the talk page and we can work them out? I still don't see any need for a disputed tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) The Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions . Jaakoubou blocked for 1 week. PalestineRemembered for 1 week. Rama blocked for 24h. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I am (fortunately) not familiar with the amount of bickering and mediation around the whole case, but isn't it quite harsh? -- lucasbfr talk 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Given both of their rather lengthy block histories, 1 week apiece was benevolent, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Rama is unblocked as per this discussion. 1 week is the least minimum Lucas. Too much troubles and noise but fortunately we haven't lost yet the sense of judgement - with all the disruption caused at a large set of articles including BLP ones. Next time we can just go direct to article bans if people persist - and without warnings because there have been thousands of them. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Keep up the good work, Fayssal. El_C 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Yup, seconded. There's been a lot of bickering and needless reverting been going on from the pair of them for months. A 1 week break to stop the disruption seems fair. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Wasn't PalestineRemembered under CSN mandated mentorship? Where is his mentor? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) His mentor is here. PR's been away for a while and this removal was one of his first edits back. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Hmmm, I just checked your talk page and apparenly Jaakabou brought this to your attention hours before posting it here. Why did no communication occur prior to him posting here? It seems like this could have been taken care of before it spun into ANI drama.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Some things take longer to deal with than others, and given I've just come back off holiday, I've got plenty of other things to deal with. I was planning to look through it all today, but Jaakabou had already posted. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Nod. I don't disagree with this block and hope that once PR comes back we see some more proactive mentoring rather than letting things get out of hand. He needs watching. It took him four whole days to get blocked for a week after being gone for two months.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) What do you have to tell to his mentor Kyaa? Jaakobou's mentor is also informed. Mentors are feeling tired and suggest better things to sort this out but these users, instead of partcipating at ineteresting discussions as this proposal they go on with their troubles. Do you have a word for them Kyaa? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) You do realize that jaaka responded to Durova's note (the same one you linked to) on his talk page in a not-completely negative way. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) That was his response and he was not blocked for replying positively or negatively but blocked for all the reasons mentioned above. And if WP:SLR. We cannot push people to be friendly with each other but we have no better offer. This is a collaborative project and there are limits. There are plenty of projects around here serving for the main purpose - building an encyclopedia in a friendly and neutral manner. So we won't spend more time wikilawyering while keeping the articles locked or open for wars. Nope. Establish an online magazine or something similar. SLR is working and editors from both sides are feeling better. The I-P area is full of bickering and wikilawyering. And there's one single solution to that --> discipline (after all "discipline" is not-completely a negative thing). Please think about it. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I repeat, I don't disagree with this block. Jaakabou has made some damn fine, even featured, contributions to this encyclopedia. He gets into deep shit in Isreal/Palestine articles. Maybe he should change his focus.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Everybody gets into deep shit in Israel/Palestine articles and that's why some order is needed. We don't want it to smell like 'shit' all the time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (<-)What may be helpful here is upon PR's and Jaak's return, there should be some form of temporary injunction on each one from communicating with the other. The two have individually made contributions to the project, but they seem not to be able to get out of each other's way; as if each one is the other's catalyst. As sad as it sounds, if they could first learn to IGNORE each other, that may be the initial step in them--eventually--learning to work with each other, if only from a distance. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Avi, I have long thought you would make a good role model and additional mentor for Jaakobou, as you are someone with a similar (but not so extreme) POV, long experience, and who knows how to edit Wikipedia ethically and within the rules. This is no reflection on Durova, who has done a good job in encouraging J to spread his efforts outside I-P articles, and whose mentorship I hope continues. It is clear to me, however, that something extra is necessary to improve J's behaviour, and reduce the problems he causes. Would you be willing to consider such a role (with Durova's agreement of course)? What do other editors here think of this proposal? --NSH001 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I saw the note left by Jaaka on PR's page the other day, but I don't have time to deal with this kind of thing (wikilawyering, imo) anymore, so I leave PR entirely in Ryan's capable hands. A week's block for both is fine, though it's not helpful that Jaaka keeps a running list of every even slightly dubious edit PR ever makes and constantly works to portray those edits is the worst possible light. Someone really needs to tell Jaaka to stop running to AN/I every time consensus forms against him, on top of endlessly pushing PR's buttons. I doubt a week long block is going to get that through to him. -- Kendrick7talk 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (<-)NSH, with Durova's permission and blessing, I have been trying to work with Jaak. Here is one of the major issues in my opinion, and the following may equally apply to PR. Jaak has contributed many valuable edits to the project. However, Jaak also has a history of being somewhat, shall we say, confrontational in his edits. This, in my opinion, is due as much, if not more, to feelings of isolation and defensiveness as to a natural personality trait. Jaak feels that he can not perform an edit without someone reverting or complaining. Now much of this is a result of past interactions that were less-than-civil. However, at this point, it is almost as if Jaak is working under the principle of "guilty until proven innocent". If any temporary injunctions are placed on an editor, including mentoring and probation, then, in return, the wiki community needs to give the editor in question the ability to have a "fresh start" and not dig up old history for new issues. This does not always work, ala Isarig, but without the ability for others to allow the mentored editor some freedom from the past, then it is not fair to the editor in question and is bound to fail. I would be glad to take a more active role in mentoring Jaak, with Durova remaining the primary mentor. That would possibly include temporary topic or userpage bans, but it must also include a commitment from the wiki project members, especially those who have fundamental philosophical differences with him, to allow him the fresh start; to understand his POV and realize that as long as he conforms to wiki policies and guidelines, he is allowed to have them; to treat him with the same civility and respect that they themselves desire; and to contact his mentors with issues, and not even always on-wiki, to minimize any wikidrama. It takes time for people to change habits, and everyone should be afforded that opportunity. I also feel that the same measures should be applied to PR in the interests of equity and fairness. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) FWIW, Jaakobou came to me yesterday about the problem and I advised him to contact PR's most recent mentor. He did, and then while I was sleeping a lot of other things happened. I certainly appreciate assistance with mentorship, and this dispute in general would benefit from more attention on the part of the community. Most of the editors on both sides are intelligent and basically reasonable people. This situation needs clear boundaries with consistent, swift, and (usually) mild enforcement. To other admins and editors who'd like to help, I have a few positive suggestions: Please put relevant articles on your watchlist. Please intervene early in mild ways. This ANI thread and its blocks probably could have been avoided if someone had placed 48 hours of full protection on the article when the template dispute first broke out. Please recuse yourself if your own history creates an appearance of bias, even if you know in your heart that you're neutral and perfectly fair. AGF is worn and tattered around here. I've done what I can, and I'll continue, but one mentor can't work miracles alone. DurovaCharge! 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Durova, I think you and Ryan should discuss the possibility of some suggestions for both PR and Jaak vis-a-vis each other; just a thought. -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I'm open to discussion. I also think this problem is not going to solve itself without intensive community oversight; the problem isn't so much two editors as an area that's underadministrated. Too many people who might have intervened have shied away for too long, so anyone who's active on either side of the dispute has a laundry list of legitimate unaddressed grievances. These complaints that keep erupting aren't entirely frivolous or disruptive--they're the symptoms of deep frustration. On the one hand I agree that it was exceptionally poor timing for Jaakobou to open this thread less than 24 hours after the lengthy AE thread closed. On the other hand, he has a point when he says this effectively denies him all means of seeking intervention when a problem emerges at a dispute where he's outnumbered. He is not an SPA who pushes fringe theories; he's a featured content contributor who wants to see a notable but controversial viewpoint included in the range of discussion. As a community, we're not handling this dilemma well. A handful of mentors for the individuals in this dispute is not going to make the problem go away, when the participants keep running into the problem that sysops don't intervene with the tools on the mild, consistent, and firm basis that would actually regularize things. DurovaCharge! 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) This is not difficult. We've wasted far too much time on Jaakobou and PalestineRemembered. We have better editors to worry about who aren't here just to fight out the Middle East wars all over again in cyberspace. Next time either of them gets caught treating Wikipedia as a battleground, in such a manner as this, we should just topic-ban them indefinitely from all articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Neither of those two is going to be part of a constructive solution to the problem of Arab-Israeli articles. IMO they're incapable of writing neutrally on this manner, and, perhaps more importantly, understanding this policy when it comes to dealing with their fellow editors. Ok, this is my "ban the bastards" approach. Simplistic, yes: also effective. Moreschi (talk) (debate ) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I just don't think it's fair to lump the two of them together like that, Moreschi. If I'm following this episode right, Jaak taunted PR for what everyone agrees was a consensus edit,[22] PR complained about Jaak's threats in no uncertain, perhaps even colorful, terms to his mentor and upon Jaak's own request,[23] and then Jaak came here and labeled PR's complaint about Jaak's threats as being the real harassment (above), and so now they are both blocked. Jaak used to maintain an entire User sub-page tracking PR's every edit with a paragraph long complaint next to each one (long since deleted, I believe). If it wasn't for Jaak's endless goading of PR, I don't think we'd have a problem here. -- Kendrick7talk 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Moreschi, Kendrick, and everyone, talking about indef banning either PR or Jaak from various articles is premature, especially without input from either of their mentors. Furthermore, one cannot just look at this one incident. I think it is fair to say that in his own way, PR has been similarly difficult as Jaak, to the point he was almost indef banned from wikipedia in toto, if it wasn't for my intervention with the suggestion of mentorship. Both of these editors have problems with each other, and with the I/P topics in general, and, in my opinion, both of them should be put on regimens that will help them learn to deal with the frustration that comes to ALL OF US when dealing with topics of these sorts without ending up at WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC every other week. If a strict regimen, combined with the authority of the mentor to both discipline and protect each of them does not work, then we can reopen the topic ban discussion. However, not only to the both need to break certain bad habits, they both need the time, and latitude to do so. It will not work if everyone is just going to dump on PR or dump on Jaak every time there is a mild infraction. Let the mentors know (and there should be multiple mentors for both, some JOINT in my opinion) and lets give them the chance they need. -- Avi (talk ) 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) No, no, and no. These guys have had so many second chances it's ridiculous. They need to realise they are both now on their last chance. They are not tender little newbies who need to be gently taught the rules: they've both been around for long enough to know better. We've already tried out the "Wikipedia Rehabilitation School for Clueless Nationalists" approach in this case. It hasn't worked. Time to expel them from the club if they fuck around with the encyclopaedia any more. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC) LOL, right, that ban almost happened because Jaak insisted PR had accused him of war crimes, which I think was pretty ridiculous. It's the same pattern, Avi. -- Kendrick7talk 02:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Has no one read my posts to this thread? DurovaCharge! 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I have. Did I say something different than what you said, other than perhaps asking the mentors to put them both on some kind of regimen? -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, very different. The community needs to become more involved in solving this dispute. It's unrealistic to expect a handful of mentors to pull rabbits out of a hat. I've been on this for months; I'm fresh out of rabbits. And I'm keeping the gerbils to myself. DurovaCharge! 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Understood. However, I am afraid that the more people become involved, the more likely things are to break down along pre-existing geopolitical tendencies. Where is the safety valve? As long as no permanent sanction can be placed on Jaak without your OK, or on PR without Ryan's OK, I guess its better than throwing our hands up in defeat now :( -- Avi (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC) This notion that mentors get veto power over community sanctions is strange; I'd like to know what precedent there is for it. I object to it on several levels, either for myself or for anybody else. DurovaCharge! 03:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Not veto power per se but from a psychological and human nature perspective, anyone with a distinct history of a problematic character trait needs time and sheparding to change it, and I am afraid that the general membership's patience is worn somewhat thiin with both of these editors. If mentorship has been instituted, then the mentee's should be allowed to have the space needed to grow and change under the guidance of the mentor, otherwise what is the point? -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Wait a sec, are you aware that these mentorships formed under very different circumstances? PR's was explicitly as an alternative to sitebanning. Jaakobou sought me out himself, under no pressure at all, because he could see he was in a tough dispute and had enough self-awareness to ask for help. DurovaCharge! 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I know about PR's, it was my idea . -- Avi (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Well I wouldn't want editors to become fearful of seeking help proactively, if sometime later it takes on the appearance of a scarlet letter. DurovaCharge! 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC) With respect, that doesn't apply here. I think if you hadn't been known as mentoring Jaakabou he would have been topic-banned long since, so the incentives for seeking out a mentor are unchanged. I'm not even touching the PR siteban discussion, which IIRC was something of an absurdity. Frankly, we can do without either of them on these articles. Them being here is not good for the articles, for WP in general, or, I suspect, for them. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Struck out a mistaken reference. I was thinking of an earlier discussion where Jay accused PR of intentionally and disruptively introducing "facts" from holocaust denial websites onto Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Looking at the history of the trigger article and its talk page, it has been Jaakabou against everyone else who showed up for several months. A pretty clear example of tenditious editing against a consensus of other editors. A narrower topic ban or a really restrictive 1RR limit might be in order after the block expires. I won't be imposing it because I read the ARBPIA "uninvolved admin" definition very strictly, but an admin who feels free to act under the case could, or his mentor could. GRBerry 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I feel it is appropriate that I comment here (even though no one asked for my opinion), because I have been following Jaakobou's record a lot and have been accused of 'taking every chance to defend him' (or something along those lines). On this issue, I mostly agree with Avi and Durova, namely with the following: ... However, at this point, it is almost as if Jaak is working under the principle of "guilty until proven innocent". If any temporary injunctions are placed on an editor, including mentoring and probation, then, in return, the wiki community needs to give the editor in question the ability to have a "fresh start" ... It does appear that Jaakobou was never given a fresh start and it looks like today, it has become an acceptable trend to completely ignore his views and edits (whether good and well-sourced or bad) and auto-revert them. There seems to be a group of editors whose names I won't mention here (this isn't about them) who don't have clear records themselves, but today seem to be viewed as righteous upholders of truth while they get away with blanket reverts of even Jaakobou's best edits, lack of discussion on talk pages, repeating personal attacks, etc. I'm not sure why this is, but there have been many contributing factors, namely the CAMERA fiasco (which almost surely has nothing to do with Jaakobou) and the (rightful) banning of quite a few pro-Israel editors (Zeq, Isarig, Amoruso, etc.) who would probably have supported Jaakobou. I agree that Jaakobou is sometimes out of line, but no more than many other editors who frequent the I-P articles, and therefore instead of constant blocking and topic-banning, I think a completely different approach needs to be taken. For a start, what happenned to article protection? This common and sensible practice so frequently used in the past seems to be largely ignored today on I-P articles, even though it's very often warranted under Wikipedia policies. I think this has not been suggested before, so I will suggest: there can be several unofficially-appointed admins who will monitor I-P articles (similar to Durova's suggestion), and instigate temporary but full page protections wherever there's a dispute just starting - this way, even heated disputes can at least be kept to the talk page and don't have to escalate into huge edit wars with severe instability and constant tag-team reverting. I think this approach is better than topic-banning or blocking individual editors (namely, PR and Jaakobou) because, as I said above, it is really an issue with at least 5 editors, and that's also temporary because time has showed that every year or two, editors from both sides completely change (some lose interest and others arrive), and if some of the above suggestions for blocking these two users are accepted, this will only solve the probably in the very short term, and will just fuel more lengthy and almost-pointless discussions such as this one we're having now. Hopefully, this will be the last lengthy and thoughtful post I will make on this subject (although from experience, I can tell that it won't be :(), because I have better things to contribute to on Wikipedia, and am sure the same is true for most of the editors who have participated in this discussion so far. Best regards, Ynhockey (Talk) 17:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistant Spam Account (Part 2)

Resolved

 – User indef blocked by admin. --

talk

) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I mentioned a problem with Skimurphyski and their continued addition of material to the Take a Bow and Good Girl Gone Bad articles concerning "...the video may be seen at her official website www.RihannaUpdate.com..." The result of that complaint was a 72-hour block of the registered user, as well as a one-month block of an associated IP address.

Tonight, I logged in to WP, reviewed my watchlist... and lo and behold, a new user, Rihannaupdate has appeared and is making the exact same edits to the above mentioned article. Thus, if someone could run a checkuser and assist, it would be much appreciated.

Respectfully, --

talk

) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Report to

WP:SSP and present your evidence there. Rgoodermote

  03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the multiple account creations, I've blacklisted the link. This can no longer be linked on wikipedia. See WikiProject Spam report --Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Request admin intervention at

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

There are a number of editors who automatically remove any criticism. The sourcing is not an issue: the deleted material came from Reuters and the San Diego Union-Tribune, no cause for complaint there. The most recent edit summary from this crew said simply "remove slander." [24] The editor also removed the NPOV tag that I posted, without waiting for the dispute to be resolved. A look at the talk page indicates that this is a long standing problem, and that there are editors who may be in violation of

talk

) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt has not explained what the neutrality problem is. He might want to do some research on this. Sunray (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that I suspect

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Strettolicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) of being the same individual? I don't think that removing speculative sources which are in any case more about the Tibet-PRC dispute than the Dalai Lama are in any case a sufficient grounds for POV-tagging a reasonably decent article. Guy (Help!

) 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that you suspect that I and Stretolicious are the same person? Hell if I know. Do you normally engage in this sort of speculation about persons with whom you have a content dispute? And the topics discussed in the deleted edits [[25] are not more about the Tibet-PRC dispute. One is a report in the San Diego Union-Tribune that the Pope cancelled a meeting with Mr. Gyatso. The other is a Reuters wire where a Tibetan Bhuddhist functionary claims that Gyatso is acting in conflict with the tenets of the faith. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why this sourced material ought to be deleted. It appears to me that it has been deleted strictly for POV reasons, which is the basis for the neutrality dispute (Sunray take note.) I object to JzG going in an unilaterally removing the NPOV tag -- is that normal practice? --

talk

) 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up for all concerned: recent changes in China's policy about internet access make it increasingly likely that previously minor issues are going to flare up into major problems involving multiple articles in the familiar pattern of warring national mysticisms. Please add some of these to your watchlist:

• International Tibet Independence Movement‎
• 2008 Tibetan unrest‎
• Jin Jing
• Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
• Fenqing
• People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951)‎
• Sino-Vietnamese War
• War in Darfur
• People's Liberation Army
• Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China‎
• Li Ao
• Political status of Taiwan

That is, of course, a small subset of those have seen some troublesome activity. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add Dorje Shugden to your list. Lots of anti-Dalai Lama editing going on there. Corvus cornix_talk 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Retracted bomb threat

Here, retracted here. Revert and block done, but we usually like some drama in these cases rather than following with an ignore. Options? ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellently dealt with by the block Redvers. No need for any other action. Revert, block and ignore. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any need for further action here. henrik•talk 12:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's much better to report such threats when nothing comes of them than not report them if they're legit. WilyD 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How could anyone remotely see that as a real threat? The guy even says he's joking. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we blocking people for having crap senses of humour now then? Shit, I better keep my head down. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when someone actually from a school makes specific death threats against named students in that school, yeah we should report it. Here, the silly twit is nowhere near London (not that I wouldn't like to see some punk kid get hauled off to Scotland yard for an uncomfortable couple of hours). Thatcher 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be delicious. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think inserting bomb threats into mainspace articles is funny, then yeah. SQL^{Query me!} 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)We block people for making real-world threats, whether real or "jokes", because to do so is disruptive and not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Also, a bomb threat, in this day and age, is never funny, under any circumstances. The Americans even put people in

concentration camps just in case they might make bomb threats. ➨ REDVEЯS

is always ready to dynamically make tea 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake! I was having a little wry grin. I apologise for my subtlety - move along.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)@Thatcher,

David Copeland lived nowhere near London. Given the username, I think it's worth reporting, if only because of the possibility. --Rodhullandemu

12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably ping David Gerard then, he's in the UK and is a checkuser so he can provide the information to the correct authorities if he thinks it is serious enough. Thatcher 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --Rodhullandemu 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reporting this is a joke, a complete waste of authoroties time and effort. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be three Albert Streets in London. One appears to be a fairly long residential road in NW1 near Mornington Crescent, with no bus route along it as far as I can tell. The others are titchy cul-de-sacs in NW12 and N15. Of course, this presumes both that the person posting was not joking, and that they got the road name right. Oh, and Joopers, forgive me if those living in London don't find this sort of humour funny (1, 2, 3). I agree it looks like a joke, but would be happier if there was follow up. If others who have done this sort of follow-up before could deal, that would probably be best. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there are any Albert Streets with bus routes along it, as far as I know. No need for follow-up in my opinion. Rudget (Help?) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't wanna split hairs, especially over what really seems to be a joke, but what if a)a private coach on a known route is bombed? b)the bomb is on board a minibus? It's essentially like loading up a van but if the minibus was cheaper, why not that? No-one ever suspects that... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A Slovenian anon making POV remarks

• Anto left a message in my talk page at 19:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC) complaining that "an anonymous user from Slovenia is insulting Croatia making personal attack on Croatian users and pushing his POV, using IP addresses User:24.86.110.10 and User:24.86.127.209. An example is this edit to Talk:Balkans. See also Special:Contributions/24.86.127.209.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User blanking talk page comments

I posted a comment on Talk:South Korea earlier today regarding inadequate sourcing in the article, only to have my comment blanked by User:Youngjoon Shin [26]. This user subsequently blanked a whole discussion on the same page [27], before removing the warning I left on his user talk [28]. I've reverted all three, but was sufficiently concerned to look through his edit history, and found a few more examples of the same thing. This could perhaps be construed as removing spam, but a substantial amount of content was blanked several times on Talk:Samsung Electronics, something he appears to have already been warned about [29]. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You've put another warning on there. Let's see if that works. If it doesn't, bring it back here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested banned user sock block

Resolved

 – Indeffed.

Can someone please block

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paskor? Kelly ^hi!

22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

tag team (meat puppets) attacking Obama article

Resolved

 – article deleted, sock blocked SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Scjessey are tag teaming (meat puppets) who are wiping out the Malia Obama article and making it a redirect. If they claim the article is not notable, they MUST discuss it, not tag team dictate their whims.

They are getting rude and uncivil.

Please force a discussion, not allow them to destroy hard work and article building. Block them for 6 hours if necessary to stop this encyclopedia destructive behavior. Watchingobama (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure for them is not to tag team but AFD and vote merge/redirect, not destroy (wipe it out completely) the article by tag teaming. Watchingobama (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference -

Malia Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, it appears that some discussion has taken place at the article's talk page, prior to the article being nominated for deletion. The concern is that there is only trivial mention of the subject in reliable sources, all of which relate to her father, Senator and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama. I'll add that, as you note, the proper procedure is in place and being followed at the deletion debate, so further discussion on the merits should be directed there, particularly if you have any sources or information which would document the subject's notability in and of herself. Do you have diffs of any rudeness or incivility in relation to this article? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They were tag team throwing the article away but it has stopped for now. It is now an article for deletion debate. That's ok but vandalism is not. I suggest that if anyone wipes out the article, they must be stopped and blocked. You can't vandalize an article just because you think it should be deleted. You have to wait until the formal discussion is over. Watchingobama (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should probably review what

^talk

20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was getting there, as well - we're all on the same team, here, and accusing other editors of vandalism and meat-puppettry (as Watchingobama appeared to do above) isn't really

assuming good faith. Let's calm down and discuss the merits, instead of each other, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that a deletion debate is ongoing, I agree wholeheartedly - blanking the article, redirecting it while it is under discussion in this manner, or removing the AfD tag would be vandalism. However, if the consensus at that debate is to redirect to Barack Obama, as is proposed, then that is what would happen. So, as you indicate, the formal discussion will continue for the time being at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malia Obama. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note the timestamps: the redirect revert that I did was prior to the filing of the AfD, and I agreed the AfD was a good idea and said I would revert my redirect, temporarily, pending the outcome of the AfD, which I didn't get a chance to do. Calling a redirect blanking vandalism is incorrect and this claim of tag teaming/meat puppetry is, well, very reminiscent of the actions of a particular sock farm, and that bears looking into.Tvoz/talk 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, it was redirected first, then undone by watchingobama, then prodded, undone, and now brought to AFD, and will be deleted.

^talk

20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the fortnightly posting of Tvoz (talk · contribs) and Bobblehead (talk · contribs) (plus another, this time) accused of bias regarding either, or, and and, the Obama and Hilary related articles. Since the bias complained of generally changes depending on the viewpoint of the complainee, it appears to me that Tvoz and Bobblehead are generally getting it right (which is a whole lot different that spreading the truth, eh?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read the AfD and watchingobama's contributions, I'll note that one editor may see tag-teaming where another sees consensus. I particularly liked the piece in "her" article (added by wob) where she asked her father if he shouldn't be vice-president first.

Nicely done, that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I need to ask...how come this user has not been blocked. It basically says on his/her talk page that all the account is going be used for is the deletion of anything that puts Obama in a bad light...to my knowledge that is violation of

WP:NPOV. Rgoodermote

  03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I reported at UAA twice. And now that he went of on a rant and started nominating every presidential candidate's children's articles he could find just to make a point, he really needs a block.

^talk

04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So is this another sock of User:Dereks1x, or is something else going on here? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. Dereks1x usually jumps to a new topic once found out. Most of the recent socks we've ferreted out have found something entirely new to work on each time. Most recently, he's been spotted assuming complex personalities and getting promoted to Admin, but he's been real quiet since that once came out. If you ask my opinion, diving back into the Obama mess would not be in his character. My guess is he's playing the good user trying to build a good cover for his next adminship run. This kind of thing just doesn't smell like him. No, this is just garden variety political editwarring... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayron, I have to disagree with you - I am with Akhilleus on this, and I smelled exactly that a couple of days ago. This editor fits more than one of Dereks1x's mo's - not just this bogus accusation of Bobblehead and me, but also his language and including his visiting one of Dereks1x and his socks' perennial Obama hobbyhorses, the FOP endorsement. There are other behavioral similarities as well, and in fact one of the ways we've found many of his socks was from such similarities. Note the forum shopping, as well, a typical move of his - 4 days after establishing his account. And, unfortunately, I've seen him dive into Obama and other familiar places over and over and over again. Tvoz/talk 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Good catch Tvoz. There looks like enough here to request a checkuser. Most of the major Checkusers (Alison, Thatcher) are familiar enough with him to spot him on sight. I hadn't looked that closely; I was more involved with the Archtransit end of his operation, where he avoided the entire Obama situation. However, given the standard behavioral patterns, I would have to agree with you on that. I stand corrected. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One RFCU filed. I generally wouldn't bother on an indef blocked user, but he's being rather persistent in trying to get unblocked. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchingobama is now disrupting the AfD by repeatedly adding several other articles which he argues must be kept or deleted if

Malia Obama is. Other editors have commented that the articles should be discussed separately; I agree. Watchingobama is now edit warring to include those other articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And now Watchingobama has been blocked for being disruptive. Can't say I didn't see this coming... Its always funny to me when the originator of a thread gets themselves blocked for being disruptive. Like the hundreds of admins that watch ANI aren't eventually going to figure out what is going on... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And now unblocked.

^talk

19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And blocked again; thanks Alison. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And re-blocked as a  Confirmed sock of

talk · contribs), per the filed RFCU case - Alison ^❤

19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism

M0RD00R (talk

) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He also seems to be adding aquite a few geocities sites as external links, all detailing accusations against the subject. Seems like

WP:EL, easily. Redrocket (talk

) 05:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Krzyzowiec has six reverts on that page in the past 24 hours and also edit-wars persistently at Jan T. Gross by inserting geocities links and deleting references to sources like the Washington Post, calling them Soviet propaganda. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Left a clear final warning on his page that any further problems will result in a long block. Black Kite 08:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently final warning was of little effect [34], [35], so disruption reported at 3RR notice board here.

M0RD00R (talk

) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Concern over multiple SPAs adding spam external links

Struenang (talk · contribs) Smeunum (talk · contribs) Quastbel (talk · contribs) Lerhinkim (talk · contribs)

All these users seem to be single purpose accounts with the intention of adding external links to Filefront-hosted videos from wikipedia articles on upcoming videogames. The pages linked to are usually nothing more than the press video hosted on FileFront (usually copied from the game's official site) surrounded by a collection of adverts. I've reverted most of the changes for the newer ones, but the older edits will take time to go through. As they feel like spam accounts, I'd probably suggest a block, but it looks like the accounts are used for a day and then abandoned. Anything else that you feel would be appropriate in the circumstances? Many thanks for your time, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gave them all a friendly warning. If they continue, they'll be blocked as spam accounts. — Edokter • Talk • 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

quick sanity check on User:Fantasy Game Productions‎

Resolved

 – User indef blocked; page salted

Could someone else take a look at the page history of this user page for today (May 2), and his other contributions for today, and the bottom 2 sections of his talk page, and let me know if I'm right that this should be discouraged, or if I should just go find something else to worry about? I know that wall of text shouldn't be in the article he put it in, but should I let the user page go? --

barneca (talk

) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me. Edit: And it done got 'sploded. Damn, I love being right. HalfShadow (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the (now) red link should be a clue I was on the right track. --

barneca (talk

) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's back again. Boy, some people are born with more than their fair share of thick, aren't they? HalfShadow (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Page is back, and I'm about to sign off for the weekend, so I'll let someone else worry about it. Seems to be annoyed his article got deleted, no longer communicating with anyone AFAIK. Have a good weekend, folks. --

barneca (talk

) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind sweeping this under the bed, please? HalfShadow (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Account has been indef blocked by X-persian Girl (oh, y'know!), and I have salted the userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism patterns

Recently Desert Vista High School and Mountain Pointe High School have been getting vandalized with near identical vandalism. Which is not too surprising since the same person or persons seem to be doing it. Going through the page history of recent events, I find the following vandalism-only accounts:

Desert Vista High School

Bonzaibaby

Elaborateliar

SlayerofFools

TerminatorD

24.251.53.63

24.121.108.134

68.0.161.91

68.99.94.9

68.107.211.190

70.190.109.69

70.190.161.42

130.13.168.109

130.13.169.247

130.13.170.86

Mountain Pointe High School

Bonzaibaby

Elaborateliar

Keeweeman-ape

Monkeyking123

SlayerofFools

24.251.53.63

68.99.94.9

70.190.161.42

70.190.109.69

130.13.170.86

130.13.169.247

Chelsea High School (Chelsea, Michigan)

68.107.211.190

The Chelsea High appears on the end because curiously the same IP vandalized it as vandalized the Desert Vista High article, in the same general time period.

None of these accounts have ever been blocked, and all the named accounts are recently created vandalism-only SPA (DPA?) accounts that only operate on these two articles.

I don't konw what should be done about this, or if this is the right place to report it. Suggestions? Loren.wilton (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Both pages should be semi-protected.

miranda

06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thecrypteasy is there now making similar changes, although not to the same lengths. I can't check his deleted contributions, but it seems to be the second time he's uploaded an image, which is the Mountain Pointe school logo. Judging from this [36], it looks like it was deleted before. Redrocket (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure this is a vandal. There have been a (few) constructive posts to those schools from anon IPs that are obviously students. From what I've seen here I think this may be a GF editor from the school.

They did indeed upload the logo once before, and it promptly got deleted for no free use rationale. They then uploaded a second time. It isn't clear to me if we have a real free use problem here, or simply a new editor that quite reasonably has no clue about our byzantene free-use hoops that must be correctly jumped in order to stick an image on something. That is to say, I don't know if there is an actual problem with the image that needs to be explained, or simply the metadata hasn't been filled in correctly. Trying to start a conversation with the editor would probably be best. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

HAGGER movers

Resolved

 – Faarquad's edict has been carried out. All is well in Duloc. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user: I think 2 + 2 = 22. (movelog makes a set of familiar edits/moves, gets banned, pages restored. Is it what we gonna do?

It seems that plenty (if not most but definitely not all pages) can be safely move-protected. Why would there be a legitimate reason to move Australia or New York articles, without WP:RM anyway? Same applies to user pages. Why should Raul and others have their pages haggerred from time to time? The general proposal is more of a policy issue, so feel free to move this discussion to the VP. --Irpen 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibilities are being considered HalfShadow (talk

) 02:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirm The Kill

I really have no idea what to make of this one. Evidently (from the edit summary) this article about a band was deleted. So Gamer9678 objects, userfies the page (good!) and then attempts to redirect the mainspace title to the userfied article (bad! I think) Huh?? Anyway, here are the diffs, maybe someone else can make sense. [[37]] and [[38]]

Should we have a speedy-deleted article held in userspace like that, I wonder, especially for a blatantly non-notable band? (I'd be willing to bet it's being linked to from elsewhere...) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I semi-protected

Due to more IP disruption, again. Somebody can reset to move:sysop in a few hours. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ANI is a place to see admin intervention not a place to fight over the content of an article. If the only people posting in a section are the ones fighting it out on tyhe talk page then this is a pretty good hint that this isn't in the right place. Since no admin action appears required shall we close this down now?

Spartaz ^Humbug!

08:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Onorem raised the noatability of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace at 17:50, 28 April 2008 [39] at Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales and then reverted the sub section (which was created nearly a month ago and after the main page has gone nearly 500 edits) at 14:09, 29 April 2008 [40]. The reason User:Onorem was given is, "I see no argument on the talk page for including this section, only bad faith accusations about the motivations behind its removal. Stand alone article is linked to from see also."[41]. This user is expecting within 24 hours other editors should jump into the talk page and should take their dicission of the section which has passed by nearly 100 editors and a bunch of administrators since its creation. The rush this User has shown is either his personal tendency on the issue or not showing good faith on other editors who are continuously contributing to the article Diana, Princess of Wales. User:Onorem justifies, "...Stand alone article is linked to from see also" on Edit Summary to this ill-formatted article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace. But it has been created poorly by cutting and pasting the content of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" which was in the Diana, Princess of Wales without copying it from the HTML code. The User who has created the above mentioned stand alone article is vigourously campaigning its removal from the Diana, Princess of Wales. The User has taken me for 3RR violation to the right place and even reported to ANI promptly. So it can't be an error this User missed to copy the HTML code and other sourced references to meet the wiki standard. Wikipedia Merge criteria says, “ 3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there. ” Princess Diana Institute Peace was founded in a Third World country Sri Lanka where raising fund is a major draw back. Even the media coverage on internet is very minimal to bring all its activities on-line. These factors with other political set backs and humanitarian violations are very distruptive to carry out its activities on regular basis and meet wikipedia Notability criteria compared to other NGOs in the developed nations. For the question why it is something to do with the Diana, Princess of Wales is its starting name "Princess Diana" gives more identical with late Diana and the recogdnition in its activities. My opinion is the article "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" should be merged with the article Diana, Princess of Wales until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time. Though I can revert User:Onorem's revert according to the following merging criteria, I don't want to do it as I could get caught into EditWar. “ Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. ” I am leaving this information here for your opinion on Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your continuing lack of good faith in me and my edits. I created the new article in an attempt to solve the dispute. I did not copy the HTML code, because I have never created a new article before. There were no hidden agendas behind the simple cut/paste. If you don't like the format of the article, instead of complaining about it here, and making assumptions/accusations regarding my motives, you might want to spend your time improving the article. Put the HTML in, add some images, turn it into a top quality article. When I created the article, I mentioned that it needed work, and I requested that people help improve it, so once more, please show a little good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) One more comment/question. Why is this on ANI? surely the article's talk page would be more suitable.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Why I brought to ANI is you a few people don't know even how to create a page on wikipedia but taking very interest on Princess Diana Institute of Peace and other tad issues like Diana's virginity.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I don't mean to be rude but....1 ANI does not seem like the correct place for this. 2. I don't really understand what you are saying. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I agree this is inappropriate. Use the talk page to discuss content issues and controversial merges, if a consensus cannot be reached consider edit warring. --neonwhite user page talk 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I too agree with you, ANI is not the right place. But the above User is taking extra interest over this issue, but don't know how to create an article on wikipedia. Now turning her stand that he is English and asking me who am I? I will have to ask my ancestors who are from the Nordwestblock region same as Diana, Princess of Wales who am I?. A Gaelic or Celtic stock?Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I didn't feel that the information about the institute belonged in a biography about the person. Instead of simply removing it, I asked for input on the talk page. Instead of an explanation about why this institute should have its own section on an article about the person, there was a bunch of bad faith accusations about why people wanted the information removed. I'm sorry if you felt that the 20+ hours wasn't long enough for discussion, but there's no reason why that discussion can't still continue. AN/I seems very premature at this point. --Onorem♠Dil 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Really 20+ hours is not enough for discussion.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, it was. In any case, it's now been 48+ hours, and I still don't see an argument justifying why this institute deserves its own section on a page that is supposed to be a biography about Princess Diana. --Onorem♠Dil 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC) If Onorem hadn't removed the section I would have. I was on my way to do precisely that when I noted he had already done it. It was decided by consensus that the material did not belong in that particular article. The information is still on wikipedia and has "pride of place" in it's own article. As I said at the previous discussion on the matter if Bermudatriangle wants to be constructive he can help improve the new article (it is in drastic need). Otherwise the action he is taking is highly disruptive and not beneficial to the project. The "content" dispute was solved by consensus both on the talk page and at the previous discussion on this very page. If Bermudatriangle doesn't like what the new article says than he should help edit it constructively or nominate it for deletion under the appropriate criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC) What disruptive actions are you referring to? As far as i can see two users, consensus can change and claiming a false consensus is not civil. --neonwhite user page talk 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC) The disruptive actions I refer to is the refusal to help improve the new article and instead bringing this up again when matters had progressed through what on the talk page and the section on this very page looked like consensus. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Neon, though I agree with Jasynnash2 on "pride of place", still I have doubt whether the info available is enough for creating a new article for the institute.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) i agree that such an article would unlikely survive an afd on grounds of notability. I can't find much evidence of it's existance considering the high profile but thats something that should be taken to an afd. --neonwhite user page talk 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Why it can't be merged with Legacy section with thin content until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Personally, I'd have no problem with the institue being mentioned in the legacy section but, it doesn't require the extensive write-up it had. As for consensus it looked on the talk page like consensus had been reached. I don't understand why content dispute or otherwise Bermudatriangle seems unwilling to help improve the new article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) If you could do the write-up (thin content) about the institute and being mentioned in the legacy section with the link to the new article, then fine I will involve with the new article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I've fixed the content on the new article so it is using the exact html coding that Bermudatriangle was using in "his" section on the section in the Diana, Princess of WalesJasynnash2 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC) That is not "my" section. Then what about these[42][43][44].Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Please accept my apologies. It was the fact that you are the only one voicing concern for it's inclusion in the Diana article that made me think of it as "your section". Again, I don't understand why you don't wish to help improve the separate article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I am in two minds, if I were to be totally objective, I would suggest deleting the new article, and not having the reference in the old article. It is a stub at the moment, and is unlikely to grow. It is not notable, and is not relevant to the Diana article. It should not go back into the Diana article, that seems clear, it is a very minor organisation, named after her, with no involvement from her. It is unlikely to grow. But I do think that it might be nice to give it a chance, leave it where it is, let people hunt down some more information, and see if it can grow. If it were left in there, we might as well have Diana's favourite chocolate bar and what brand of soap she preferred. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Your Edit Summary shows why you are so keen it should not go back to Diana article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I would love to speak my mind right now, however civility prevents me from typing the words that are on the tip of my tongue. Since I encountered you, you have tried to interpret every single edit I make, you have seen motive - when there is none, you have accused me of lying about my origin, you have accused me of making politically motivated edits. When are you going to work it out? I have no political interest in these articles, I don't have any particular affection nor dislike for Princess Diana - I am just editing wikipedia. The fact that I removed the statement which said Diana was a virgin before marriage is just a fucking edit !!!! I don't know what you are trying to read into that edit, or into the related edit summary - but the only thing you can assume there, is that I like editing wikipedia. Stop assuming the worst about me and my edits. Stop making totally absurd comments and accusations. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Mind your language first. It is not your blog to use "... just a fucking edit !!!!" and "I don't mean to be an asshole about this..."[45]. You comment "...If it were left in there, we might as well have Diana's favourite chocolate bar and what brand of soap she preferred."[46] shows your total stupidity and arrogance. I am not bothered of your origin, but you yourself declared you are a "White English". But in your userspace some other editor too questioned of your origin which you have placed as your credential. Talking with you is not productive but exhausting myself how an another editor felt, so I too choose not to talk to you.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (undent) This is still a content dispute in the end. I'd suggest marking it as resolved and leaving them to go towards dispute resolution which is where this belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk ) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Point One. Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't like to language such as "fucking" and "asshole" then perhaps you should reconsider your position as an editor of a site that is not censored, either that or make a proposal to bar all profanity from wikipedia. Point Two. While profanity is not banned, editors are expected to remain civil at all times, and not to make personal attacks. "your total stupidity and arrogance." is clearly a personal attack against me, which is blatantly in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Please apologise for that outburst and refrain from making personal attacks against me or any other editor in the future.Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) If wikipedia is not censored, and you have the freedom to use the words "fucking" and "asshole". Then take this issue to Jimbo Wales that will help a change in wiki policy. Sorry, no appologies, your limitless freedom is the cause for my emotional outburst. Bermudatriangle (talk ) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) well it is really nice of you to not only break the "no personal attacks" rule, and of all the pages to break it in, you chose to break it on the ANI board but also when it is pointed out, for you not to care.. you must either have friends in high places, or really not care about being blocked.Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I don't have friends in high places. Even if I know personally Jimbo Wales, that won't stop an admin to do his task against me here. But what I am concered about is a change in wiki policy.Bermudatriangle (talk ) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Hey !!! I have a great idea !!! instead of expecting an established website with a huge userbase to change policies just to suit you, why not try a website where you can control the policies yourself, you can remove comments, you can decide which nasty words are and are not allowed - and I know just the place Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Talking with you is not productive but exhausting myself. But my personal opinion is a website with huge userbase should have some ethics how its members should communicate with each other.Bermudatriangle (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Not sure if it means the matter is resolved but, Bermudatriangle has agreed to work on improving the new article and I've agreed to put something in the legacy section of the main Diana article. Confirmation can be had on user page but, please don't add to the discussion there. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I've agreed with Jasynnash2.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I went ahead and added the institute into the Diana article. Can this now be marked as resolved and future discussions occur on the appropriate article talk pages? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I have added some more details with reference at the Legacy section of the Diana, Princess of Wales as the article "(Sri Lanka)Princess Diana Institue of Peace" was speedily deleted. I am expecting your input there.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I want to know why Sennen goroshi, created the article in a rush if that is nothing[47],What is Sennen goroshi's actual motive to create that speedy deleted article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help with disruptive editor

Hello, I have been unable to effectively communicate with User:I Hate CAPTCHAS. Unfortunately, this user has become disruptive on numerous occasions despite attempts to communicate productively. The user has had many of his edits reverted and is insistent. He will not accept corrections to bad grammar or diction. He also does not use the talk pages. The user has reverted to being a puppetmaster at one point here. I feel that this user will continue to be disruptive and stubborn. Most of his work that is not disruptive is merely copies of my own work. I humbly request that this user be disciplined in some fashion. My desire is for the Wikipedia experience to be an enjoyable and collaborative one for everyone. This user has diminished that. He labels my discussions as attacks. An example of the bad grammar he insists on reverting back to is: In 1981 O-Pee-Chee printed an identical, save for O-Pee-Chee branding, to the Topps set. I do not know how old this user is, however I do know he is uncooperative. Please help. Libro0 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that insulting his use of the language [48] didn't do much to help this new editor wish to engage in discussion. I don't see a long history of warnings on this user's talk page and in fact, see very little in the way of attempts to talk to or help this editor. Despite that, this editor seems to be making constructive edits to articles about baseball cards.

Here's what I do see: you got in to an edit war with him - you felt information was redundant, he felt you were removing important information. When he reverted your changes, you resorted to a rather uncivil comment and accused him of dumbing down articles. A week later you returned to discuss a problem with his grammar and he appears to have ignored you. Given your first exchange, this is hardly surprising.

Unless you have some considerably better evidence that this editor is disruptive, I don't see any need for intervention here. Shell ^babelfish

This user blanks his talk pages. As I stated above his work was just a copy of mine. I considered offering him the opportunity to take up the O-Pee-Chee project, however when he uses bad grammar and sock puppets, I decided he was too stubborn to be able to work with. He does not respond to talk rather he reverts to his edit for the sake of having his edit. All of his good contributions although few have remained. I may have been stern at one point but I do not feel I was rude or cruel. It is clear to me this user is unable to discern good writing from bad. My warnings about quality were for his own good. Poor quality will get pages deleted. I had discussed expanding pages with another user. As soon as I did this he copied over my work to make these new pages. His good work is really an extension of mine. Nevertheless he still insists on engaging in needless edit wars. Editing out of spite is disruptive. All of my edits with respect to him have been to better the encyclopedia, not to 'battle' him. Again I ask that any further needless disruption be dealt with. I have tried to help this individual. Libro0 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hum, the last comment I posted to this section should have been for the section below. It is now moved. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm seeing absolutely no indication of sock puppetry here, other than the accusations above. And I think the statement that "poor quality articles will be deleted" is outright delibearte FUD, unless the author of the comment is the one intending to do the deleting. Articles around here get deleted for poor sourcing, not for poor use of English. If the later was the case 90% of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Hi. If someone repeatedly mentions his own name on my Talk page, should I remove it, or ask that it be permanently removed? This person is objecting to my having foolishly mentioned his name off-Wiki in 2006, as a name I removed from an article as being non-notable in that context. I have subsequently edited the name from my blog entry. Should his name be removed from the Talk page as well, for his own protection, or is that his call to make? Thanks! --Karen | Talk | contribs 02:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Providing that you are not contravening any policy or guideline, your editing of your talkpage is your own business. You may also request that other editors respect your wishes regarding the use of your talkpage. Anyone can edit the article talkpage, within the same policy proviso, so you can remove (or archive!) the mention of the name - although another editor can return it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlos N Nemer

Resolved

 – blocked user Toddst1 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one that I need help figuring out. Carlos Nemer has been deleted SEVEN times, Carlos N Nemer twice, and this time it was CREATED with the HANGON tag! I take it the editor went to using the N because Carlos Nemer was salted? How does something like this get handled? User talk:Colatina appears to be getting more and more frustrated on the talk pages of the deleting admins, starting with asking why to posting the whole article in three easy steps :) Anyway...I appreciate the help learning what to do in this sort of sitch. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is just try and educate the editor about notability, and why the article they submitted is lacking in notability. I don't think anyone's really worked on pointing that out, so will do so right now. Often, they don't see the reasons for the deletion, and maybe would benefit more from some calm explanation. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After he made a personal attack against User :Orangemike on User_talk:Tony Fox and recreated the article for the ninth time. I have blocked the user for 48 hours. Note that the user hasn't made a non-reverted constructive edit yet. My read was he didn't want to accept feedback. Toddst1 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, something's strange here. The article that was deleted had been around, as the editor notes, for several years before the May 2 speedy deletion. Looking at some older versions, it might in fact express some notability - it's still mostly unsourced, but I wonder about this one. It could definitely use some additional consideration from more admins, please. As for the block, I think there may be a language issue here that's not helping much either; the first comment I received back from my polite note was relatively positive - though it did take a poke at Orangemike, as you note. Not sure a block was *really* necessary, but again, other thoughts welcome. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to work out a way to make a joke about where I should AGF for creating an article 9 times but 10 is out of the question, but I just couldn't keep it from sounding snotty. More seriously, Mr. Fox has a point on the language: I was on the fence there but the jab at Mike was where I terminated the assumption of good faith. My thinking was it was being recreated several times exactly as it was in previous versions and the editor wasn't taking the feedback. If others feel differently, feel free to change the block - I won't be at all offended. I'm going to get some sleep. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock farm

• Special:Contributions/When in Cleveland

When in Calgary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cantwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cape Lisburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cape Newenham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Chattanooga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cleveland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
--Hu12 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number of socks under there. I just blocked a /20 range ACB for a month to prevent more and more. Shall I list the accounts here? - Alison ^❤ 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm watching and will indef block them when listed. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so. The following:

1. How Willy Got His Wheels Back! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Señor Beavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Road on my Terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Time keeps on slippin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. The Numbers Game (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Dance to the Made (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Lunchhands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. My words have hands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Urge True (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. LONG PENlS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. This user's password is RUBICON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. This name is a stub. You can help by expanding it (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Daivd pwned Goliath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. Hoovermoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No fair, I like "This name is a stub. You can help by expanding it" Can I use that from now on? :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:USURP is thatta way :) — Edokter • Talk • 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with Image search

Resolved

 – Seems to be fixed. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong with Imagespace search. I was moving free images of the London Eye to Wikimedia Commons...I first moved a bunch of images displayed in the London Eye article, then I tried searching imagespace for orphaned London Eye images. It returns no hits even though I know for a fact we have images with "London Eye" in the description (the ones I had just moved to Commons but with local copies not yet deleted.) Not sure what's going on here. Kelly ^hi! 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have started working again, please disregard. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Would someone like to do the update? It's four hours late. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done by BorgQueen. WjBscribe 12:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock farm

• Special:Contributions/When in Cleveland

When in Calgary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cantwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cape Lisburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cape Newenham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Chattanooga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
When in Cleveland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
--Hu12 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number of socks under there. I just blocked a /20 range ACB for a month to prevent more and more. Shall I list the accounts here? - Alison ^❤ 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm watching and will indef block them when listed. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so. The following:

1. How Willy Got His Wheels Back! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Señor Beavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Road on my Terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Time keeps on slippin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. The Numbers Game (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Dance to the Made (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Lunchhands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. My words have hands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Urge True (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. LONG PENlS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. This user's password is RUBICON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. This name is a stub. You can help by expanding it (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Daivd pwned Goliath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. Hoovermoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No fair, I like "This name is a stub. You can help by expanding it" Can I use that from now on? :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:USURP is thatta way :) — Edokter • Talk • 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with Image search

Resolved

 – Seems to be fixed. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong with Imagespace search. I was moving free images of the London Eye to Wikimedia Commons...I first moved a bunch of images displayed in the London Eye article, then I tried searching imagespace for orphaned London Eye images. It returns no hits even though I know for a fact we have images with "London Eye" in the description (the ones I had just moved to Commons but with local copies not yet deleted.) Not sure what's going on here. Kelly ^hi! 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have started working again, please disregard. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Would someone like to do the update? It's four hours late. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done by BorgQueen. WjBscribe 12:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI unprotected

So we're unprotected again. Maybe we should consider protocol in situations such as these. I personally wouldn't have protected... this page is too potentially important to IP users to semi-protect IMO. Thoguhts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something I'm missing I don't understand why it was protected in the first place. The last anon posting I see here was 8PM last night, or some 16 hours ago. Is vandalism here automatically oversighted rather than just reverted? I don't believe I've ever seen an anon valdalism in the page history. Loren.wilton (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of this page from 05:06, 3 May 2008 UTC (this morning - 7 hrs ago). Constant page blankings by a vandal with a dynamic IP seriously interferes with the operation of this board. The edit conflicts must have been a nightmare. I think protection was right in this instance, though I think it should have been lifted earlier. If we have to protect this page, I suggest the protection be lifted every hour or two to check whether it remains necessary. WjBscribe 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh there we go. Shame Wikipedia runs on 'your local time' rather than UCT or florida time or some such. I see an entirely different hour than you do for that vandalism. Yea, Grawp is worth blocking for. Loren.wilton (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, protection was correct, however I guess nobody remembered the board was semi protected. Maybe put the {{pp-vandalism}} template next time? :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the protection was noted above at #AN/I semi-protected with a request for unprotection in a few hours. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have been enough to draw attention. The template might work but do many people look at the top of this page? WjBscribe 12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection certainly was necessary. Its Grawp people, he wasn't just going to stop. As far as notification, yeah, I've always seen people add a thread about it. I guess adding the template would be a better idea. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm guessing I'm a loner in my views about ANI not be protected. :P I mean, what would we do if grawp turned on TFA? But, otherwise, having a constantly re-applied and lifted protection sounds fine to me. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

IP using flagicons inappropriately

Resolved

 – run out of warnings, blocked 55 hours --Rodhullandemu 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite several warnings,

Gladys J Cortez

15:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that oughtta do it...thanks! :)

Gladys J Cortez

15:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Could an admin please undelete Image:Antenna_biconic_dipole_active.png, per this and notify the uploader so they can fix the details? They missed the speedy deletion notification. Kelly ^hi! 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. east.718 at 16:36, May 3, 2008

Protected double redirect

Resolved

 – Done. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[49] I'm not going to ask why it was portected, but whatever the reason, could somebody fix the double redirect at least?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent events in Austria

Resolved

 – Thanks all. Rudget (Help?) 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In consideration of that what do we do with users like Josef Fritzl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? There has been no contributions as of yet, but I presume it is related to the Austrian case, especially if you take the account creation time into account. Rudget (Help?) 17:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the article titled

Fritzl incest case, I would say block on sight. It is so very obviously not Mr. Fritzl himself, being in prison and all, and so very obviously someone out to disparage or otherwise be unproductive. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something along those lines... I'll search for any others. Rudget (Help?) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I had the mop, I'd block indef per
  Wikipedia:USERNAME#Real names. It's obviously not Fritzl himself, so block indef IMO. D.M.N. (talk
  ) 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reported at

SqueakBox

17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And blocked. Thanks,

SqueakBox

17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User willfully violating fair use policies past final warning

- for the moment. 
Spartaz Humbug!
 09:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

talk · contribs) has created and is maintaining Wealthiest families in history

. However, over the past week this user has been adding fair use images into this article against our fair use policies prohibiting such usage in lists/galleries. The history:

• 15:48, 23 April: I remove the fair use images from the article noting they violate fair use policy in the edit summary [50].
• 19:33, 24 April: Jughead reinstates the images [51].
• 20:17, 24 April: I remove the fair use images, noting again in the edit summary that the images violate policy and including a commented text in replacement of each image which says "Do not place non-free licensed media here, per
  WP:NFCC policy" [52]
  .
• 20:56, 24 April: Jughead reinstates the images [53]
• 14:06, 25 April: I remove the images again with similar edit summary and comment text [54]
• 14:08, 25 April: I leave a note on Jughead's talk page informing him that the use of the images is against policy and advising him not to reinstate the images. [55]
• 16:40, 25 April: Jughead reinstates the images [56]
• 17:37, 25 April: I undo Jughead's edit [57]
• 17:39, 25 April: I leave another note to Jughead, advising him that if he continues to do this he may be blocked from editing [58]
• 20:14, 25 April: An anonymous IP obviously using a pool of IPs begins a series of reinstatements of the images [59][60][61][62][63]. I revert all of these as vandalistic reinstatement of fair use images against policy.
• 21:59, 28 April: I request semi-protection on the article to prevent the IP from continuing to vandalize the article [64].
• 22:01, 28 April: I inform Jughead that I've requested semi-protection for the article to prevent the IP from continuing their actions [65]
• 06:25, 29 April:
  Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semi-protects the article [66]
• 15:39, 1 May: In a series of edits, Jughead reinstates the prior removed images and adds more fair use images [67][68][69]
• 17:51, 1 May: I give Jughead a final warning [70]
• 17:56, 1 May: I remove the images again [71]
• 18:51, 1 May: Jughead places the article for speedy deletion [72], not citing a reason.
• 18:56, 1 May: I undo the speedy deletion request, since the article seems reasonable for inclusion [73]
• 18:57, 1 May: I inform Jughead of my action [74]
• 21:31, 1 May: Jughead reinstates the images yet again [75], then removed one [76], then reinstated it again [77].

During this series, Jughead attempted to add fair use rationales to the various logos as an attempt to satisfy WP:NFCC. But, the issue isn't the rationales. I informed Jughead this was improper [78] and removed the rationales.

I am requesting

talk · contribs) being indefinitely blocked until he agrees to abide by our fair use and image use policies. His talk page contains a large number of postings regarding image problems, with this latest problem just being the last in a long line of problems. He refuses to communicate on these issues and has willfully acted in violation of our policies despite multiple warnings. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk

) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be irrelevant as I have AfD'd this article here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• The behavior is not irrelevant. Jughead refuses to abide by our image use and fair use policies. Whether the article exists or not, this is the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is nobody going to do anything about this? I've re-removed the images again because I'm tired of being reverted by him over and over and over again. Until he's blocked, the images are remaining on the article in violation of policy. Further, the AfD seems pretty clearly to become no consensus, keeping the article. Jughead's going to continue to edit war to force the images onto the article. He needs to be blocked until he agrees to abide by our policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be any current issues to deal with. We would normally avoid blocking an editor while an article they were working on is up for deletion as it denies them the chance to defend it. Also they are not currently reinsterting the images. Do come back to AnI if the problematic behavior resumes.
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    09:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No current issues? Have you looked at the article and the AfD? There are still fair use images on the article. Every time I remove them, he puts them back in. Would you prefer I edit war over this? Is that an acceptable solution? I came here for help to STOP the edit war, and you're basically telling that there's no issue, so go ahead and keep edit warring. Ok. I will. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, removed yet again. Watch as Jughead puts them back in for the umpteenth time. No worries! No issue! We can violate policy any time we like, right? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Jughead's last edit to that page was @ 20:42, 2 May 2008 and did not involve restoring the images. I closed this at 09:48 3 May - i.e. 13 or 14 hours later. Its now 20.24UTC and therefore 24 hours after the editor last edited the page. So please explain what action a block is supposed to prevent? Otherwise, bring this back when there is actually something actionable.
        Spartaz ^Humbug!
        20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Jughead continues to show the disruptive pattern. He ignores our policy, does so willfully, and has shown no signs of stopping. The long history I detailed above shows this. A block of his editing privileges until he agrees to abide by our fair use policies is entirely appropriate. I tried removing the images, leaving more detailed information, then trying to talk to him, then warning him...nothing worked. You're telling me to go ahead and keep edit warring? This is senseless. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Literary agent Barbara Bauer filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court in January against Wikipedia posters as well as the site itself

Please delete:

• Talk:Barbara Bauer/Archive 1
• Talk:Barbara Bauer/Archive 2
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination)

WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, why? _→AzaToth 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Suit was filed last year, only in the news today since WMF is publicizing its motion to quash. Cary has been on this, I'm sure he and Mike know what they are doing. Thatcher 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the talk archives under

CSD G8 (which should have been done anyway). The AfDs however must stay. — Edokter • Talk

• 13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can they be courtesy blanked? Or are AFD's already hidden from Google searches? I'm not sure, but I thought I saw that stated somewhere. Horologium (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you cleared any of this with

User:Mikegodwin? I would be leery of making any changes to any of the articles currently in a lawsuit without guidance by the foundation. -- Avi (talk

) 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted, as per the consensus at the second AFD. The talk files should have been deleted at that time, but weren't, for whatever reason. The histories are still available, if there is a need to refer to them in any legal context, but they are out of view of non-admins, which is probably what the subject wanted, in any case. Horologium (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with deleting the talk pages. However, blanking/deleting the AfDs should be done by the

WP:OFFICE if they think these cause problem. I don't really see the urency in this case, since the motion was brought to court in January. -- lucasbfr ^talk

14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, we recently filed court papers in which we stated that the article is no longer available (as it wasn't when I filed my affidavit). It would be nice if the community didn't turn the Foundation, EFF, and me into liars. :). As to the AfDs, I've been trying to keep WP:OFFICE actions to a mininum (partly in reaction to some fairly heavy-handed WP:OFFICE stuff in the past), and it would be helpful to be able to say that any given action was taken by the community, not by the Foundation.

talk

) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked these pages and purged their history. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I doubt very much that it would be an issue, I've protected the article itself against recreation, just in case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem: Please restore the histories to the AfD debates (courtesy blanking is ok, but the AfD discussion should remain). (→Zachary) 02:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No. In this case, they should remain as Max made them. Everything is not a hard and fast set rule. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that Max's reasoning is "Look at what Mike said" and what Mike said was "it would be helpful to be able to say that any given action was taken by the community, not by the Foundation," I have to say, the justification for this is sloppy at best. I'm going to undelete the histories pending an actual, you know, decision by the community that this is the best thing to do, as opposed to one that just vaguely cites Mike despite the fact that Mike expressly did *not* ask for an OFFICE action.

talk

) 14:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is causing stress to the subject, and there is little gain from having them restored, I believe deletion was a

good thing. I don't think they were deleted as an office action, just an editor doing what they believe was the correct thing. Best, NonvocalScream (talk

) 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And, to be clear, I am not opposed to deletion - I'd just like to see some actual discussion and consensus that it's the right thing to do.

talk

) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr.Fantastique

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 RGTraynor 

01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I told him to leave you alone, and go work on something else. I hope you will help him to disengage and not respond to any further attempts to continue this dispute. --Haemo (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't respond this past time; it was plainly the point where I needed to step out and an admin stepped in. I'll be happy to report here if he continues to push.

 RGTraynor 

01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Traynor has a long and controversial history of upsetting other editors, usually because of his intransigent attitude and contempt for users with whom he disagrees. If mentioning a university degree is "less than civil", certainly calling another player "a joke" (in the past tense at that) goes along the same lines. No warning was posted on Traynor's talk page. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just taking a drive-by shot at him, can you please provide some DIFFs for your accusations that RGTraynor has a "long and controversial history of upsetting other editors"? He's never been blocked, and doesn't seem to have any major conflicts recently. Redrocket (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Redrocket, I will not : I don't intend to waste anymore time with either of you. Your edit war accusation was quite enough for me to lose most respect for your opinion. Check

WP:DONTBITE. --Mr.Fantastique (talk

) 09:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But "Don't Bite" is followed by two more words: "The newbies". You have demonstrated pretty conclusively in the two posts here that you don't fit in that category, regardless of the age of the account you are posting from. Loren.wilton (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know how I have conclusively proven such a thing (conclusive proof is not easy !). --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, although I'll just briefly hit the high points. In spite of the fact you've been an editor here for less than two weeks, you talk about RGTraynor's long history of upsetting editors, which would indicate either you've had a problem with him before, or you're experienced enough to know where to look for such problems in the archives. The third alternative here is that you made it up, since you won't provide any DIFFs or evidence of your claim.

As for not

biting, my first comment to you wasn't biting [79]. I as just informing you that he could delete your comments from his talk page whenever he wanted, just as any editor could. Your hostile response [80]and comment that "You are not as familiar with Wikipedia policy as you put on" seemed to indicate that you not only didn't care about being civil, but felt you were quite familiar with wikipedia policy. Redrocket (talk

) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I know how to read, Wikipedia guidelines come quite easy to me compared to the real law with which I work every day (especially when you have things like

WP:DONTBITE in the first place. You cried wolf about edit warring on my talk page. I simply responded. Perhaps I was a bit brusque, but I don't like false accusations. For God's sake, the 3 revert rule hadn't even been broken yet ! --Mr.Fantastique (talk

) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(OD)

WP:3RR hadn't been broken, you're right, I was simply informing you that he could delete things off his userpage. Your edit summary here [81] stated that him doing so was vandalism, which it isn't. I left you a message, since this was the second time you had reverted his change to his userpage and you seemed to be getting upset about it, so you'd know that deleting comments is perfectly acceptable. You responded with hostility, and it's gone downhill ever since. All I was trying to do is help you understand. Redrocket (talk

) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reference to

WP:USERPAGE. It came in quite handy when Traynor felt he needed to bring up my deletion of certain elements from my talk page with an administrator here. Are we done here ? --Mr.Fantastique (talk

) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a DIFF in a discussion, not just a page link so other editors can see what was posted and when. As for that link, I don't know exactly what RGTraylor was referring to, since it was a conversation with another editor. I can infer that he was talking about this edit [82], where you removed a good faith attempt from an editor to try and cool things off. Your edit summary seemed to say that you were disregarding it because the editor didn't see both sides of the issue as you saw it. That's fine as per

WP:USERPAGE

, but it doesn't really do anything to show that good faith editor that you're willing to listen and calm down.

And yes, by all means, let's be done here. It seems like everyone else has given up, as well. This was a request for someone to talk to you about your behavior and try and cool off some civility issues, and that's obviously not happening. If you want to continue arguing, I'd suggest taking it to a talk page rather than here. This isn't helping anyone involved. Redrocket (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of a notice is confirmation of reception - didn't you read the quote I left from

WP:USERPAGE ? Anyways, I already told you that I'm not trying to prove anything here, but nice job trying to pin the burden on me anyways. Thanks for agreeing to stop bothering me. I consider the matter closed from my end. --Mr.Fantastique (talk

) 18:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider to this discussion, it appears that all the demands for diffs are being placed on the accused while the initial accusation shows no such evidence. Furthermore when it appears that the editor has enough knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines to defend himself in the proper format he is attacked with insinuations that he is some kind of multiple account user or sock puppet. Clearly this argument is baseless and slanderous. The key factor in cases here is the behavior of the individual, not his knowledge or length of an account. Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate regardless of editor account age or class. Given the statements on both sides I see nothing completely out of line here. --

talk

18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just let these guys alone. The whole point was to get them to walk away. Badgering one another is not helping. --Haemo (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with WillOakland

BLP article Tory Christman and at Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography

. Seeking administrator review.

• WP:CIVIL problem in edit summary. Diff
  .
• WP:POINT
  problems:
  • First, inserts unsourced claim. Diff.
  • When prompted to give a page number to back up this info, user instead chooses to revert Diff.
  • After discussion with the user, he provides cites to the book itself, and yet gives page-ranges so large that they're meaningless (280 pages for a single citation!) Diff.
  • After further discussion, he changes the same citation in a way that's still problematic and
    WP:POINTy – to a page of the book's index (which again, would force a reader to peruse most of the book in order to hunt down his claim). Diff
    .

I've held multiple discussions with this editor and it really hasn't been possible to communicate with him constructively. See

User_talk:WillOakland#Contents_info for a sample: when I pointed out a problem he altered my posts [83][84][85][86] and insulted me.[87] Cirt (talk

) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you both need to take a chill pill. You might be overreacting a bit towards his supposed "insults", Cirt; although, his attitude is not really becoming and he needs to settle down. If the information cannot be cited, then it should either be tagged or removed. Providing meaningless reference is not a remedy for uncited facts. When it all comes back to policy, he needs to provide reference for claims that may be challenged, and that's that. I'll try talking with him now. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a message on WillOakland's talk page and am now awaiting a reply. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do Cirt's actions merit any reprimand? I'll be candid: Cirt came to me for advice shortly before he wrote up this report. I think he was quite reasonable and the other editor's actions are well over the top. Altering another person's talk post is blockable, and WillOakland did that four times in succession, insulting Cirt as he went, while Cirt was patiently explaining that it's unfeasable to cite an entire range of 280 pages in a single footnote. If it looks like Cirt was at all aggressive in filing this report, bear in mind that WillOakland is apparently also 24.22.217.110, who was edit warring over Tory Christman's name[88][89] hours before WillOakland's Fuck it, I don't need to cite someone's name summary for an identical edit.[90] FCYTravis backed Cirt up there.[91] Durova^Charge! 14:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Eh, it appears my comment was misconstrued. I just meant that you may have come down just a little too hard on your evidence, Cirt; for example, in the latter diff, he didn't directly insult you, rather made an uncivil comment. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, all right then. Well I hope you succeed where Cirt tried. Sometimes several voices have an effect where one doesn't. Durova^Charge! 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on his reply, is he posts one. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you,

talk · contribs) took action, that this report was warranted. Cirt (talk

) 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Rtgs

Resolved

 – Editor blocked indefinitely under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions ruling as ethnic defamation edits continued. Toddst1 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Impoliteness, incivility and difficult communications with

talk

) 06:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted User:Rtgs as attack page and issued Racially Motivated Edit warning as well as the balkan warning. User not currently active. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This user now seems to have inserted a rant about their page having been deleted, which seems to include an incitement to violence. Additionally, they do seem to be active again, judging from their recent contributions. --Hydraton31 (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you speak about me and my deleted page in plural???Rtgs (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

'They' is an informal English equivalent for 'he or she,' frequently used when the pronoun's antecedent is singular but of uncertain gender, for example, an internet user with a username that doesn't make gender clear. It's a way of avoiding calling you 'he' or 'she' if the speaker isn't certain which you are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it per a bit of

WP:IAR. Clealry unacceptable userpage content. Pedro :  Chat 

09:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all - i will go out of Wikipedia. It is obvious that it is not place for free thinking. I see it is place of Greek propaganda, and you are covered under your "i don't want to know" blanket, and equalizing the victim (Macedonians) and the killer (Greeks). Even worse, you agree with the Greek genocide on Macedonians, as Germans agreed on genocide over Jews, or Turks still dont agree on the Genocide over Armenians.

Being such arrogant (administrators), you must be very young. Just to warn you that you have to be open to truth and you should think with your own brain.
And don't forget - FREEDOM. You may not agree with me, but you have to do everything to give me possibility to express myself. Otherwise, you are prisoners of your behavior. Good bye!Rtgs (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely after this edit under the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions ruling. This editor showed no signs of ceasing ethnic/racial defamation. Issue resolved. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Mykungfu: Indef Block Evasion via Multiple Socks

User has returned, via multiple socks, after over a year, attacking the same articles & editors. Several admins refused to re-instate him/her after wikistalking, personal & racist attacks, etc, but there is question as to whether he is subject to a permanent ban, as likely he should be (currently tagged as such). Current suspected socks listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th) (backlog). I would appreciate clarification and action, if deemed necessary, on this issue. Thanks, -RoBoTam^ice 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

and for reporting him and reverting disruptive edits, more wikistalking here. -RoBoTam^ice 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If no admin is prepared to unblock then they are effectively banned - it doesn't matter what template they have on their page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User page in mainspace with redirects

For any admin who might have a few free minutes to work this out: User:Sudar 4edi moved (creating redirects) their user and talk page to User:War2@, then moved (creating redirects) that user and talk page into mainspace at article Sudar 4edi. Seems like Sudar 4edi and Talk:Sudar 4edi should be moved back to User:Sudar 4edi userspace over the current redirect along with a warning; the mainspace article redirects created by the move should be deleted; and User:War2@+talk should be deleted as used only for as an interim step in the transfer. As least I think that's how it probably should work. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All worked out, I believe. - auburnpilot talk 20:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Move of William Wallace

Resolved

 – Moved back. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The page William Wallace was "moved" (using incorrect procedure) to William Wallace (Scotish patriot) and William Wallace (Scottish patriot) by User:WillWal without discussion, with the edit summary "There are many William Wallaces, and some are more famous that this William Wallace". I have no idea which of the William Wallaces mentioned in William Wallace (disambiguation) come close to being as famous as The Wallace. This has botched up the page history, as it was not done correctly. Can and admin fix this? Camillus 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the "new" William Wallace article (that was just copy/pasted from where it was moved) needs to be deleted, then the original version moved back over the old name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything's back the way it was. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User Chadf b

Chadf b (talk · contribs) is inserting some serious allegations that are unsourced and plainly POV into several BLP. He was asked to stop here, and by me here and here but has continued. Diffs: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]. It appears looking at their history they only have an agenda to defame this Jack Keafer guy. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user edit warring on Ayn Rand (again!)

Anonymous user who has been disrupting Ayn Rand article pushing POV point is doing it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.111.29.12 His contributions are almost entirely limited to Ayn Rand and he has been pushing hard for his POV while other editors are still debating certain points about the lead and reviewing sources. I think the article needs protection from anonymous users again. Thanks for looking into this Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as this one are absolutely unacceptable. I'd agree that this is a problem, though I don't know about protection if it's a discrete few editors. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a user from an IP address, so I don't know if blocking the user is beneficial. He appeared and started supporting the POV pushed by spinoza1111 who was posting from an IP adress around a block. That IP address was blocked, so now he posts from Starbucks in Hong Kong noting he can't be blocked. They are both rude and insulting. The issue at hand is one worth debating and getting right as it's cropped up before. These two don't help as they just start either insulting, posting OR, or claiming that I'm the rude one and that they already have a consensus. It's getting dull at this point. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As is too often the case, the person who comes here to complain is the guilty party. Ethan is an incorrigible edit-warrior who is responsible for getting Ayn Rand Protected recently. He's been dismissive, dishonest and generally disruptive. Since he is unable to justify his desired changes or participate in a genuine consensus, he's taken to trying to trick admins into creating a one-sided block that would let him edit but silence some of the people who have prevented him from making a mess of the article. He briefly got his way, but a wiser admin upgraded from Semi to Full protection. If he won't stop edit-warring, I guess you'll have no choice but to Protect the article again, but if you do, then please save a step by using Full Protection. Oh, and by the way, I'm not anonymous. My name, my real name, is Bert. Hi. - Bert 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

I hope the admins will take the time to read the edit history of talk ayn rand. If they do and find that I'm in the wrong, then by all means act as it warrants. I comfortable that the truth is right there in "Bert's" comments and mine. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The owner of indef-blocked User:Spinoza1111 has self-identified as Edward Nilges. Recently a long-term block was issued to 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs) (a static IP in Hong Kong) since he identified himself on his Talk as being the same editor as Spinoza1111. But the IP being complained about here is from New Jersey, so it's unlikely to be Nilges. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He's surely not Edward, but jumped in to defend Edward who was hurling insults. This seems to becasue they have the same POV they wish to push. Bert, as the other anonymous IP person signs his posts is the one currently edit warring. Edward made his poiont, and has kept his word not to edit the article so far. He want to make his point and, at least provides arguements, although they are OR or, in the case of one site, outdated. Bert just trys to stir the pot and push. In any case, this is my opinion, but an admin should read through the comments. I can provide a timed transcript of comments (mine too) if anyone would find that easier. Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You may withdraw my complaint. I'm leaving the Ayn Rand page to the blocked user Edward Nilges, and the anonymous edit war warrior "Bert." Apparently wikipedia source guidlines are meaningless if the article is about someone people don't like. I can't hold the line against them and their friends. It's just not worth the effort Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring back this complaint. User "Bert" has repeatedly posted disruptive messages on the talk page. See, e.g., [103], [104], [105]. In addition, his only contribution, as far as actual article edits, was to jump in and begin an edit war while he was still debating the relevant issues on the talk page [106] (it should be noted that most of the editors on the talk page were against Bert's proposed edits and every single non-anon editor of the article has had to revert each of his edits at least once for violating the consensus). See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_13#Consensus_on_whether_to_add_anything_about_Rand_being_a_philosopherIdag (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As one of the recent editors of the article, I endorse Idag's comment here. Skomorokh 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought my leaving would stop Bert, as he was particularly fixated upon me as I self identify as an objecitivst. I see it hasn't. In that case I too support Idag's and Skomorokh's position. They have been editing in good faith and actually improving the Ayn Rand article. They deserve admin's full support in dealing with "Bert's" disruptions. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot, Bert uses two anon IPs to make his posts: 12.111.29.12 and 65.170.159.12.[107] Please look at the conduct of both IPs when evaluating his disruptions. Idag (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous user occasionally identifying himself as 'Bert' is engaged in an edit war at the

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article too which resulted in full page protect. To his credit, he (slightly) toned down and began what appeared to be a dialog on the discussion page. However, after page protection was removed he immediately (as he had promised initially) re-inserted the disputed text into the article despite his own suggestion of taking the dispute off-line to a sandbox for resolution. It is my opinion that 'Bert' is more interested in proving a point than he is in improving the article(s). Alfred Centauri (talk

) 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, all of these editors who are bashing Bert just so happen to be huge fans of Ayn Rand and (im)morally opposed to any valid criticism appearing in her biography. If you look at their contributions, you'll see they're all edit warriors in support of Ayn Rand, and seem to be willing to manipulate admins to win. Right now, they've tricked some admin into semi-protecting the article, since they know that three of the opposing editors don't use accounts. What trick will they try next? Will you, the admin, be fooled again? Only time will tell. 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Again, the admins should read the edit histories and not take my word for it, or anyones word for it. The edit hostories of these users, including mine, show the truth. I love the truth! :-) Happy days! Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

an edit made to Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Hi. Is this something of concern or should it be ignored? Thanks. ~

U

) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignored. It's simple vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, RJD. I mean, if he was just "dangerouse" it would be one thing, but dangerouse AND smelly??? (The line must be drawn somewhere, lest the smelly people win.)

Gladys J Cortez

18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be onto something there... ;-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We Persons Of Noxious Gases will eventually win... It's only a question of grime! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the smelly bit that worries me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am; therefore I stink... (or is that a case of putting

Descartes before the horse?) LessHeard vanU (talk

) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If Descartes is BEFORE the horse, he probably doesn't smell anything unusual.

Gladys J Cortez

22:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – Well, not really, but already mentioned a few topics above.

An anonymous user at ip address 24.30.38.213 (talk · contribs) made legal threats about a supposed attack on his racial heritage at Melungeon: first in an edit summary [108] and then on the talkpage of User:Parkwells [109]. He has twice been warned about legal threats: first in an edit summary by User:FayssalF [110] and later on the talkpage of the ip address [111]. Can someone look into this? Thank you. Aramgar (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. HalfShadow (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I looked but did not find. Aramgar (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Try

here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk

) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting update re: "Problem with

Doctor (Doctor Who)

My apologies, but I lost track of time, and had not realized that the one month I had allowed (not in-post, please do not misunderstand me) had previously expired. at 19:24 21 March 2008, I filed a report of the unacceptable behavior to the detriment of the encyclopedia of two editors Edokter and Ckatz on

Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)#Reverting reversion of Edoktor. The initial response to that was, from Tango, the indefensible (literally; no case can be made to support it with logic and fidelity to the facts, including the content of my posting, and that itself is a statement of fact) statement that all I had reported was a content dispute. When I pointed out that this was not a valid response, all that was said since, mostly by Kralizec!, was to deal with my alleged tone and to take words and short phrases totally out of context as if there is no possible situation in which their use is proper. In fact, every single one was, given what they were in response to, the absolutely correct thing to say. This thread ends with a comment from me, but was followed with User talk:Tbrittreid#No personal attacks by Kralizec!, implicitly threatening me with being blocked, on my talk page, to which I replied with User talk:Kralizec!#Re: No personal attacks

on his talk page, and there it stands. I have presumed (assuming good faith) that there has been some sort of administrators' conference being held about this matter, but too much time has passed for that to remain very plausible. Before I continue, let me add that "No personal attacks" was completely irrelevant, as what I did was file a report that two other editors had behaved in a manner that was completely lacking in good faith and was, as I said before, to the detriment of the encyclopedia; in other words, it was strictly encyclopedia business, not personal at all. In the interim, I have learned that these two are administrators, which makes their behavior all the worse, as admins should know better, or they shouldn't be admins.

To reiterate the specifics:

1. After we went back and forth a couple of times on a set of three edits to
   Doctor (Doctor Who)
   (two of which they called "speculation" while the other was a question of English-language usage), they called for a discussion of them.
2. I complied, posting a very solid and detailed defense of each.
3. For the two bits of alleged "speculation" (I freely concede there was a decent degree of discussion of the other), Ckatz merely repeated their flat assertion that the two were speculation, and did not deal with my defenses of them in any way, shape, or form.
4. When I pointed out that the existence of my defenses "requires more than a unilateral proclamation from you," Edokter posted: "If I encouter[sic] words like 'suggests', 'likely', 'indicates', 'possibly' and other such phrases, it tells me that those statements are not likely to be certain in any way...." The problems here are multiple. His own words require that the lack of certainty is not mandated by the presence of any of those terms, and "indicates" is the only one of them that could be found in my edits, and in such a way that his concern is indeed inapplicable. Implying that all were there when none were in one of the edits at all and only one was in the other is an effective lie (a terrible thing to be the fact of the matter, certainly, but pointing out that it is the fact when it indeed is is not a terrible thing to do) with no more than a semantic technicality of a loophole of a defense available to him. One more time: of the words he listed, only one was to be found, only once (and therefore one of the two edits was completely devoid of them), and used in a manner that his stated concern did not exist. Incompetence at best, deliberate misrepresentation at worst, and neither should be tolerated the least little bit in an administrator.
5. DonQuixote posted, agreeing with me on two of the three edits (one of which was the usage bit, where he also suggested a compromise). Neither Edokter nor Ckatz ever so much as acknowledged the mere existence of this post.
6. After all this, two weeks passed with no further comment or action (I refer to DQ's compromise offer, which I had included an acceptance of in one post, not being put up or commented on by either of them) from these two editors. I put up a new post in which I pointed out that I interpreted their fortnight of silence (like here, the last posting was mine) as concession, and that I would repost my edits, including the compromise version of that one. I did, however, rewrite the two allegedly speculative ones to make their actual lack of speculation as clear as possible.
7. In response to this, Edokter and Ckatz repeatedly used the word "consensus." How the above four described editors' varying positions can possibly be construed as adding up to a consensus is beyond me, or any rational human being, I dare say. Edokter also said, "You, I and other contributors have each give[sic] their opinion and explained to you what the exact problems were with your edits." While postings were put up that on their own faces appeared to do that (but I certainly did not, as he claims, do so myself), in reality they did not deal with the actual content of my edits, and they ignored every single statement from me saying so. This is an absolute, bald-faced lie with not even a semantic technicality/loophole defense available to him as his other effective lie had, and, again, this should not be tolerated from an administrator.

The options available to administration are these:

1. If I have been as out of line as Kralizec! claims (I haven't), then I should be facing disciplinary action.
2. If Edokter, Ckatz and Kralizec! have been as out of line as I say (and they have), they should be facing disciplinary action.
3. If there is some reason such charges cannot be pursued, either specifically against administrators or at all, that should be explained to me.

Letting the matter simply drop, as you appear to have tried to do, is deriliction of duty. Ted Watson (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We're going to let the matter drop again because this is still a content dispute and you should be seeking

dispute resolution not making ultimatums for "disciplinary action" — this isn't a court, and no one is going to get involved in your content dispute. --Haemo (talk

) 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I have been distracted from checking this board by User:Coppertwig, who responded to this on my talk page and led me into a discussion of it on his talk page. I have just discovered he is not an administrator, and I have therefore been wasting several days there.

One more time, saying this is just a content dispute does not make it one. It is not. I am reporting extremely unethical misconduct on the part of two editors, and in fact administrators, which made it impossible to resolve what did indeed begin as a content dispute on its own merits. Note that the guidelines do concede "Accusing others of bad faith" to be an option, even though there is no description there of how to do so. This concession nevertheless requires that such a venue exists somewhere. So instead of refusing to see this as what it blatantly is, either deal with it yourself right here or tell me where I should take it (the venue specified above, for content disputes, is not it, of course). Ted Watson (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Not a legal threat but warning given about incivility and inappropriate articles

User:Mikequrto seems to have threatened User:Accounting4Taste. Not a physical threat but it seems s/he has threatened Accounting4Taste with legal action or at least that is what the wording makes it sound like. A diff can be found here and a full quote below with offended comment in bold.

"Sir, very sorry for getting upset, but I do have the right to make an article and contribute to the wiki community. I have just finished sending a very long email to wikipeida concerining this issue and I have mentioned your name. Please do not delete the article again or else some action will be taken."

I am not 100% sure it is serious but precautions. Seems to be related to the deletion of a page called JD Legends. Rgoodermote  00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a threat of legal action. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I added a question mark to the topic title. Well if you say so. I just thought it by the wording. Have a good one mate. Rgoodermote  00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's ok to have brought it here. I see did see some

WP:COI[112] and what looks like copyvio worries stemming from a deleted article about a business (and some strong incivility). Gwen Gale (talk

) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw a vandal trying to get his way. This of course could be my lack of sleep over the last few days. Well everyone makes mistakes I guess. Have a good one and happy editing. Rgoodermote  00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a warning. Cheers to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(exdent) My thanks to all concerned for their efforts. Just to note that my talk page states that the individual in question was paid $50 to write the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The latest consensus has been it's more or less ok to get paid so long as one follows Wikipedia policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Which s/he is not. Seems to be just advertising.Rgoodermote  00:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, along with being stark rude. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May be a little rash...but a block for violating

WP:NOTADVERTISING. I myself can not. Rgoodermote

  00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Never mind I read more it seems he does want to abide by Wiki Policy. So this in conclusion is dead. Rgoodermote  00:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, let's see how he does. His last post hints that he may have been clueless about Wikipedia, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Libro0

User:Libro0 has accused me of being someone else, which is absurd. Apparently I picked the wrong time to start editing and got caught up in what seems to me like paranoia, which lead to his uncivil attack. Oddly, he was one of the ones who actually added some of the information in that I replaced. Something is not right here. Please see [113] He seems to be a loose cannon that needs to be dealt with. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is always a great way of proving your self. Blame an established user for a wrong doing. While at the same time insult the user. Rgoodermote  01:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

His citation shows an attempt at civil dialogue(on my part) according to wikipedia standards of content discussion. Something I have failed to engage him in. Libro0 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He has since blanked my attempt at civil dialogue from his talk page. Indicating talk pages are for blanking and not talking in his mind. Libro0 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I will revert his blank. I know it his right to blank. But I think if some one other than you reverts it s/he may respond appropriately...or mark me as a vandal in which case I am just going to walk away. Rgoodermote  01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Personal Attacks

Despite a one week ban [[114]], more warnings [[115]], every other day this user says anyone who disagrees with him is member of a cult trying to hide information [[116]].

The PA is annoying, but what is worse is the attitude behind it, and the impossibility of discussion that results from it. Sethie (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He's right that a few of you are followers of that belief system though, aren't you? Merkin's mum 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"a few of you"??? Aren't you the one who is into abnormal psychology, demonology, and seed cake? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a few are but a few are not, but being a member of a group does not prevent one from editing an article any more than being an extremely angry ex-member of a group does unless s/he is editing in a POV manner and/or ignoring core Wikpedia policies. I think most on that page are committed to Wikipedia core policies and civility with the exception of one disruptive editor. Renee (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hours, for disruptive and tendentious editing and general aggression. There have been too many complaints for this to continue unaddressed, I think. This despite my having a distinct sympathy with his agenda. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult-free-world has never accused me of being a cultist, and I'm pretty sure I've disagreed with them in the past. Perhaps it's because I've never edited the article they're trying to build in their user space; I don't know. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to come participate and see what happens. EVERY user who has participated and disagreed with this user and his socks, has been labeled as a "member of a cult," "Zombie" and "Cult member trying to hide information." Except for Will Babeck. he was the only one to not receive these honors, though his involvement was minimal.

Thanks for the block Guy.... same behavior, same 5th attempt to recreate the same articles, third username, this is getting old.Sethie (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wageslave

There is a report on User:Wageslave's biased edits on his user page.--Playstationdude (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

His userpage is not an article, category, template, image, or discussion page. --

talk

21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about this RFC about Wageslave's edits. Though, I don't know why he brought it up on WP:AN/I, since an RFC already exists. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Editorofthewiki

Has gone to mediation. Editorofthewiki has opened a mediation request addressing the underlying issues in the article and the related behaviours. —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Found no way other than coming here. User:Editorofthewiki is continuously blanking two references in the lead sentence of the article Zimbabwe Open University.[117] I know these two references are not important, but since these two references support the claim that it is a open university and it is located at Zimbabwe, I am keen in keeping them. Are these two refewrences harmful? Any neutral eye? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

His comment that "hey simply look out of line and ugly, and they serve no purpose." was inappropriate but he does have a point. "The Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU) is an open university in Zimbabwe." is a terribly bad sentence regardless of how many refs are in it. For that matter what is an 'Open' university? If it is something trivial it does not need to be sourced, if it is something not trivial, 'Open University' likely should be linked to something. --

talk

01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it should be distance education university. Sometimes distance educattion universities are called open university, but not related Open University. I have reworded it to 'The Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU) is a distance education university in Zimbabwe." Thanks for the pointer. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll direct you to the introduction of

talk

01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has started to harass me and giving me threatening messages. Look at this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the admins handle that here and discuss my formatting comments on the article talk page. --

talk

01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not revert war on your talk page. You removed perfectly good content of discussion without explaining anything to me. This can be charicterised as loss of your rollback and a block. I showed an example of WP:V which specifically told not to over reference and yet you rolled this back twice, without comment. Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism which I obviously didn't make, and I also want a third party to discuss this part of the debate. Also, I am not the only "editorofthewiki" that has asked you about this same question. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No. See

WP:ROLLBACK. "The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits, usually vandalism" Anyone has the right to remove messages, especially from a uncivil troll, from his or her talk page. Stop giving me uncivil messages. You issued me uncivil message which I reverted. It could be reverted not using rollback feature, the result will be same. Also I don't want to continue discussion with a troll wasting my time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk

) 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now Otelemur has given me a personal attack, calling me a troll despite my FA (Lazare Ponticelli) and my numerous DYKs when I try to readd meaningful information. I'm not good at linking diffs but it is at the top of his User talk history. Otelemur has now been causing disruption upon me when I raise valid points.

I have been nothing but civil, and your manner has been of utmost uncivility.Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also want to note how I also have been trusted with the rollback permission. I also would like to know how my edits were unproductive. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysis - In spite of the past actions of both editors I've found that only Otolemur seems to have an unwillingness to cooperate with given advice and work towards mediation on this issue. The tone of Editorofthewiki's statements was harsh but his frustration is understandable. Given that, I find that none of Editorofthewiki's actions were so extreme as to warrant any sort of response beyond the warnings already stated. As for the article and Otolemur I hope that other editors or admins can explain the need for mediation better than I did, and determine if further action needs to be taken with regard to his behaviors. --

talk

02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem arose regarding the article Zimbabwe Open University. I added two references in the lead which this user deleted. I thought the references are relevant because these describe the nature of ZOU. Which is why reverted these. However now I understand that the references were excessive and I myself removed these. The situation deteriorated by this message [118]. I politely advised him not to edit war in his talk page. In response he issued me a threatening message on a completely different article. I have disagreement on another article with another user, but that is a fact between us. The other user acted politely to me and I also acted politely to him. The problem is that I found the message by user extremely offensive. In response he started an edit war in my talk page and accused me that I violated 3rr [119]. The main problem about the article is solved. I requested him in his talk page to please don't issue me message, but he ignored. How he is telling that I am "harassing" him? What the "harassment" I made? I am calm and not engaging in any debate with this user per suggestion by Lemmey. The problem with the article is also solved. Now this user is continually edit warring in my talk page. The main issue regarding the article is finished. And I have no intention to stalk/harass this user, I have made a distance from this user. But this user is continuously issuing me messages. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki is following proper channels for dispute resolutions; he has initiated a request for mediation. The message he left on Otolemur's talk page was a reasonable courtesy message that the case had been opened. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Implied threat of bodily harm

Resolved

Probably frivolous, and he's swiftly been blocked, but you never know. [120] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Might want to see this too. nneonneo ^talk 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of socks? And no two alike, I bet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked, the "threat" of harm can obviously not be carried out as the user has no idea where the other users location is. This looks resolved to me. Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser filed, just to be on the safe side. I doubt he has "thousands" of socks, but there is one suspected sock, Chicken Kidifidla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to check, and I bet there are a few more sleepers. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Barbara Bauer

Aside from this user having vandalized this page, isn't the username a bit astray of

WP:Username? Gwen Gale (talk

) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah..um..given the current situation with that name...should...a name change be implemented immediately? Rgoodermote  01:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was kinda hinting at that, yes :) I mean, it won't do at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a note for User:WJBscribe. Hopefully he is online. Rgoodermote  01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Left note and corrected my bad copy/paste. Rgoodermote  01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All edit summaries have been deleted/oversighted. I'll leave a note at

WP:BN if no one else has. John Reaves

05:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent and refusing to see the point

I am here at the AN/I as a last resort after a two long weeks of requesting, begging and demanding

WP:RS material, and in failing to see any progress, I sought third party opinion and we recently also had an RfC too. Even before the RfC I left a detailed message on his beating around the bush attitude on his talk page here. When the RfC was still going on both Naadapriya and I were asked not to revert or make any changes by the admin who was staying as an outside opiner[121]. But, Naadapriya sought help of User:Skbhat [122] to add his views. Is this acceptable? Nevertheless, my major concern is that the user still fails to produce RS materia but seem to go on and on with the same story, but no RS with the support of another user (User:Skbhat). Everyone else on the talk page including the admins involved in the RfC have asked them repeatedly to show some reliable citations, but till date none. Because of this the article page has to be kept protected. The user's attitude is stalling the progress of the article. I get very little time on wiki and it is really unfair for a user to be stuborn and waste fellow editors time. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ

15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I also know if I will be breaching

WP:Canvas

if I alert the admins involved in this issue about this AN/I namely:

• SHEFFIELDSTEEL
• John Carter and
• Renee
  

as well as the other frustrated editor like me @ the $un$hine .. I reckon they will be able to throw more light into the issue. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate the issue which is actively discussed is dragged here.(please see discussions)

1. Before I made my comment several editors already had opposed to the statement in the lead about location of falls
2. Editors opposing my correction repeatedly refused to accept the
   WP:RS
   citations based on Govt sites and Google map
3. Those recent ones presented by user:JeremyMcCracken and user:skbhat were also refused by above group of editors.
4. Rfc was prematurely initiated by solicited editor who joined the discussions with adhoc comments.
5. Naadapriya did not invite user:skbhat to add comment. Responded to comments on talk page.
6. Todate the group of editors appeared to have coordinated by Wikiality123 have refused to provide
   WP:RS
   about the strong statement that falls is in a particular state.
7. Most responses by above group of editors except User:SheffieldSteel included personal attacks. Above comment is a typical example of false accusations.
8. All inquiries by Admns are answered either by me or other editors.
9. During my tenure in Wikipedia this has taken maximum time but I do not regret in the interest of accuracy of information.

It is request refer this issue back to discussions which is almost coming to conclusion with a proposed NPOV statement that will not contradict view points of all editors involved in discussions sofar. I do not plan to further respond here since it is waste of valuable time of Admns unless I am asked by an Admn.

Naadapriya (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

As someone who regularly monitors this page, I saw the notice myself. I will confirm that Naadapriya has regularly insisted that the page in question meet the standards of his own interpretation of sources, that interpretation not being explicitly stated in the sources themselves. Many/most of the other editors who have been involved in the discussion have also commented on his refusal to respond directly to points made against him, and at least one editor other than myself has indicated that his refusal to directly address points made by others, and instead simply basically repeat himself, makes it very hard to assume good faith of him. There has been an RfC initiated by Naadapriya on the talk page. The consensus of the RfC was that Naadapriya's position was not well supported by the evidence. I believe that this editor, who has already received a two-week block for abusive sockpuppetry since his account creation in December, seemingly also over pushing POV regarding Karnataka, may have some difficulties with POV and policy. This is somewhat supported by the fact that almost all, if not all, of his edits to date have related to Karnataka and certain opinions about it, including his more problematic edits. I am now finding myself forced to question whether this editor places his own opinions and goals over those of the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No choice but to respond. Above comment is typical example of ad hoc comments by editors defending current POV statement in the lead opposed by about 10 editors to date. Following are responses to above inaccurate statements.

1. Above Editor did not regularly monitor the page. Joined to canvas on Apr 23, 2008 with possible invitation from Wikiality123 though discussions are going on since June 23, 07.
2. Majority of comments by above editor to date are criticizing approach of other editors and blindly defending current POV statement without giving technical reasons.
3. 'RfC initiated by Naadapriya' is a false statement. It was initiated by editors opposing NPOV statement that falls is on the border.
4. Naadapriya was not involved in 'sockpuppetry' as explained and acknowledged in the talk page. It was a result of multiuser system which was corrected later.
5. Yes most of my edits are about
   WP:RS
   support.
6. Naadapriya strongly believes in diligent use of wikipedia's
   WP:Be Bold policy. Naadapriya (talk
   ) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that I was mistaken about who started the RfC. Sheffield started the RfC. Also, it should be noted that I have on several other occasions commented on this page, which makes it clear that the page is in fact on my watchlist. Regarding User:skhbat, it is curious that per that editor's contribution history here the account has been extant since 2005, but only made 8 previous edits before becoming involved in the current debate, and none of them to the page in question. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advice Naadapriya to read what others are saying before you respond. John was clearly saying that he monitors this page (AN/I) page and wasn't talking about the

WP:AGF with this user. Its not just me. The admin (Shefeildstreel)who precided over the AN/I that was filed agaisnt me by Naadapriya would himself later while posting his messages would say as a reply to Naadapriya (in his edit summary) that its difficult to AGf [123].I reckon all that is humanly possible has been done and I'm not a Mahatma enough to show more patience. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ

08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is even more painful is that Naadapriya keeps telling us that he/she is a irrigation engineer, but till date, he or she wouldn't add anything constructive to this article which is on a water falls. Nothing about the hydrolics or geology or landscape or anything at all. BUT would just talk about the jurisdiction of the place with no RS. huh? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I against Wikiality123 was because of use of 'BS'. He was warned here. In spite of that he continued to use unwarranted words which were ignored. Wikipedia is a source of accurate summary information not a text book to teach on Irrigation. Yes I am a trained Irrigation engineer therefore confidently stated that there is no relation between water falls and water project (that too when it does not exist). Wikility123 disagreed repeatedly!! without technical justifications and solicited support for his POV from other editors. Now he has dragged the issue here which is unwarranted. Just like the first sentence of the previous comment he appears to condition other editor's views to support his POV.

The latest [NPOV]] lead statement proposed by user:skbhat et. al. based on input of all editors to date is the best solution to conclude this ongoing saga and move on. Naadapriya (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there is no "et. al." to the rather remarkable proposal of the previously extremely inactive skhbat except Naardapriya himself. I believe that information should be noted. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed obvious that I disgreed with Naadapriya's POV repeatedly and consistently, because it had and has no RS to back it, in spite of us asking the user to produce such a one persistently. This is why am here anyways! As for the use of the term BS, I had already explained to the admin who looked at it that it was

accept the fact. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ

10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd alike to make a couple of minor additions and corrections to the above accounts:

• The content dispute (where the Falls is located) is complicated by real-world disputes over access to an island below the falls, and usage of water from the river. Sources relating to these disputes are often cited as evidence regarding the location of the Falls, although so far none of them address that question directly. Attempts to point this out to Naadapriya have
  fallen on deaf ears
  .
• My involvement: I am not an admin, merely an editor trying to help resolve a difficult issue. Apologies to anyone I may have mis-led. It was I who initiated the RfC about the location of the Falls. Unfortunately it did not get many responses, due perhaps to technical problems with the RfC system (or my own ineptitude).
• I have not gone so far to to say that I think Naadapriya is acting in bad faith. I have said that their contribs are now tending towards disruptive/tendentious, but (per my own interpretation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA) there's a difference between cause and effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on your position that counters the misinterpretation of your views by others, particularly wikiality123, is appreciated It is unfortunate you did not apply 'so far none of them address that question directly' to editors who are refusing to accept NPOV lead statement. I have listened to your views with good faith. Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Update on the user's recent editsI have pointed this out in the article page too

Naadapriya has come up with a proposal to change the lead which can be found here. Althouth the user called it for some reason Most accurate, WP:RS based, nonpolitical and unbiased NPOV Lead statement, as I shall show you below, not only that the user had failed to understand the meaning of RS and wasting other's time and energy, but also blatantly used references which do not claim anything what they have been used for.

• The first change was the sentence It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, but the citations shown[125] [126] [127] [128] doesn't even mention the word Chamarajanagar
  

• Next was to include the distance from the city of Chennai, which logically not a big problem, but the reference Naadapriya shows us didn't say it at all[129]
  
• Next sentence Naadapriya stated was near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills backed by this reference, but once again the citation has no content even in the subpages about this.
• Then the last sentence stating that Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls is once again the same story[130].

So basically the changes that Naadapriya proposed were backed by citations that doesn't claim so. This is indeed a case of delibrately misleading the reader. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers to above comments are posted in discussions of the article. It is requested to focus on ANI issue here if there is one and discuss technical issues in articles discussions. Otherwise it is waste of time to ADMNs.Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you still haven't justified using citations which don't state what you use it for as citations. I request an admin to attend to this as a matter of urgency, since we are just going in circles in the talk page of the article, with the progress almost to nill. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this on article's discussion page.Naadapriya (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation seems to be the way to go here. John Carter (talk

) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I shall go to mediation, but please make sure that Naadapriya is fine with that too. I don't want to hear from the user that I initiated Mediation without his/her consent. In case the user is not up for it, I reckon we have no other option than to stay in AN/I. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Prematurely it was taken to RFC which failed except for adhoc inputs from solicited parties to retain the current POV statement. It has disrupted the discussions and wasted time. Contradicting comments (sounding neutral but supporting POV) by so called invited ( solicited!!)3rd parties have further stalled the progress towards accuracy. It was dragged to AN/I with false accusations on Naadapriya and also skbhat just to stall the progress. Let the suggestion for mediation come from Admns who have objective views about the article otherwise AN/I is fine for now. I would continue in discussion till Admns suggest otherwise. Currently Admns have added tags as best solution which need to stay till POV and speculative infos are removed. BTW to ALL- What happened to discussions on AN\I page about use of BS by one editor. Am I looking at a wrong place. It is related to the article. Please restore if any one of you has removed it. If it can not be done then wikipedia's special help will be sought to restore it.Naadapriya (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I take that Naadapriya doesn't want it to be taken to Mediation. I think then it is best for an admin to look into this and decide. I am left with very little options. Sorry John Carter I did want to take your advice as you can see. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One should stop misinterpreting comments by others by selective responses. Advice from neutral party is needed not from solicited party to support current POV Naadapriya (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, as I mentioned on your talk page, I am moving on to mediation. The AN/I is going no where. Wasn't ShefeildSteel a neutral party? Reene a neutral party? Did you take their advice? Did I call ShefeildStreel or Reene? I will keep this reply from you for the record. I am moving on to mediation. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No one accept anyone as neutral party when they do not even agree on universal defination of border which belongs either both sides or a neutral third party. Biased comments speak to themselves. E. g . one editor started with make believe statement that Naadapriya trying to get 'upper hand' (It was in AN/I biut currently appeared have been deleted without notice). We need to wait for neutral parties (preferably Admns) who voluntarily participate. Till then tags are the best solution by Admn. Naadapriya (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have assumed that when you file an AN/I you would follow that up and see what is going on there. Anyways, the specific AN/I which you are accusing us of deleting is in the archives. Please do not modify archived stuff anyways. You do not find John Carter as a neutral party although he left messages in Karnataka project page about the ongoing discussion as well as Tamil Nadu project. Anyways, there is no use sitting here. I think it is best for us to find mediators to solve the crisis. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if this AN/I be revisited anytime in the future, a request for mediation has been filed here. I hope a resolution may soon be reached. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent and refusing to see the point

I am here at the AN/I as a last resort after a two long weeks of requesting, begging and demanding

WP:RS material, and in failing to see any progress, I sought third party opinion and we recently also had an RfC too. Even before the RfC I left a detailed message on his beating around the bush attitude on his talk page here. When the RfC was still going on both Naadapriya and I were asked not to revert or make any changes by the admin who was staying as an outside opiner[131]. But, Naadapriya sought help of User:Skbhat [132] to add his views. Is this acceptable? Nevertheless, my major concern is that the user still fails to produce RS materia but seem to go on and on with the same story, but no RS with the support of another user (User:Skbhat). Everyone else on the talk page including the admins involved in the RfC have asked them repeatedly to show some reliable citations, but till date none. Because of this the article page has to be kept protected. The user's attitude is stalling the progress of the article. I get very little time on wiki and it is really unfair for a user to be stuborn and waste fellow editors time. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ

15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I also know if I will be breaching

WP:Canvas

if I alert the admins involved in this issue about this AN/I namely:

• SHEFFIELDSTEEL
• John Carter and
• Renee
  

as well as the other frustrated editor like me @ the $un$hine .. I reckon they will be able to throw more light into the issue. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate the issue which is actively discussed is dragged here.(please see discussions)

1. Before I made my comment several editors already had opposed to the statement in the lead about location of falls
2. Editors opposing my correction repeatedly refused to accept the
   WP:RS
   citations based on Govt sites and Google map
3. Those recent ones presented by user:JeremyMcCracken and user:skbhat were also refused by above group of editors.
4. Rfc was prematurely initiated by solicited editor who joined the discussions with adhoc comments.
5. Naadapriya did not invite user:skbhat to add comment. Responded to comments on talk page.
6. Todate the group of editors appeared to have coordinated by Wikiality123 have refused to provide
   WP:RS
   about the strong statement that falls is in a particular state.
7. Most responses by above group of editors except User:SheffieldSteel included personal attacks. Above comment is a typical example of false accusations.
8. All inquiries by Admns are answered either by me or other editors.
9. During my tenure in Wikipedia this has taken maximum time but I do not regret in the interest of accuracy of information.

It is request refer this issue back to discussions which is almost coming to conclusion with a proposed NPOV statement that will not contradict view points of all editors involved in discussions sofar. I do not plan to further respond here since it is waste of valuable time of Admns unless I am asked by an Admn.

Naadapriya (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

As someone who regularly monitors this page, I saw the notice myself. I will confirm that Naadapriya has regularly insisted that the page in question meet the standards of his own interpretation of sources, that interpretation not being explicitly stated in the sources themselves. Many/most of the other editors who have been involved in the discussion have also commented on his refusal to respond directly to points made against him, and at least one editor other than myself has indicated that his refusal to directly address points made by others, and instead simply basically repeat himself, makes it very hard to assume good faith of him. There has been an RfC initiated by Naadapriya on the talk page. The consensus of the RfC was that Naadapriya's position was not well supported by the evidence. I believe that this editor, who has already received a two-week block for abusive sockpuppetry since his account creation in December, seemingly also over pushing POV regarding Karnataka, may have some difficulties with POV and policy. This is somewhat supported by the fact that almost all, if not all, of his edits to date have related to Karnataka and certain opinions about it, including his more problematic edits. I am now finding myself forced to question whether this editor places his own opinions and goals over those of the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No choice but to respond. Above comment is typical example of ad hoc comments by editors defending current POV statement in the lead opposed by about 10 editors to date. Following are responses to above inaccurate statements.

1. Above Editor did not regularly monitor the page. Joined to canvas on Apr 23, 2008 with possible invitation from Wikiality123 though discussions are going on since June 23, 07.
2. Majority of comments by above editor to date are criticizing approach of other editors and blindly defending current POV statement without giving technical reasons.
3. 'RfC initiated by Naadapriya' is a false statement. It was initiated by editors opposing NPOV statement that falls is on the border.
4. Naadapriya was not involved in 'sockpuppetry' as explained and acknowledged in the talk page. It was a result of multiuser system which was corrected later.
5. Yes most of my edits are about
   WP:RS
   support.
6. Naadapriya strongly believes in diligent use of wikipedia's
   WP:Be Bold policy. Naadapriya (talk
   ) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that I was mistaken about who started the RfC. Sheffield started the RfC. Also, it should be noted that I have on several other occasions commented on this page, which makes it clear that the page is in fact on my watchlist. Regarding User:skhbat, it is curious that per that editor's contribution history here the account has been extant since 2005, but only made 8 previous edits before becoming involved in the current debate, and none of them to the page in question. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advice Naadapriya to read what others are saying before you respond. John was clearly saying that he monitors this page (AN/I) page and wasn't talking about the

WP:AGF with this user. Its not just me. The admin (Shefeildstreel)who precided over the AN/I that was filed agaisnt me by Naadapriya would himself later while posting his messages would say as a reply to Naadapriya (in his edit summary) that its difficult to AGf [133].I reckon all that is humanly possible has been done and I'm not a Mahatma enough to show more patience. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ

08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is even more painful is that Naadapriya keeps telling us that he/she is a irrigation engineer, but till date, he or she wouldn't add anything constructive to this article which is on a water falls. Nothing about the hydrolics or geology or landscape or anything at all. BUT would just talk about the jurisdiction of the place with no RS. huh? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I against Wikiality123 was because of use of 'BS'. He was warned here. In spite of that he continued to use unwarranted words which were ignored. Wikipedia is a source of accurate summary information not a text book to teach on Irrigation. Yes I am a trained Irrigation engineer therefore confidently stated that there is no relation between water falls and water project (that too when it does not exist). Wikility123 disagreed repeatedly!! without technical justifications and solicited support for his POV from other editors. Now he has dragged the issue here which is unwarranted. Just like the first sentence of the previous comment he appears to condition other editor's views to support his POV.

The latest [NPOV]] lead statement proposed by user:skbhat et. al. based on input of all editors to date is the best solution to conclude this ongoing saga and move on. Naadapriya (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there is no "et. al." to the rather remarkable proposal of the previously extremely inactive skhbat except Naardapriya himself. I believe that information should be noted. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed obvious that I disgreed with Naadapriya's POV repeatedly and consistently, because it had and has no RS to back it, in spite of us asking the user to produce such a one persistently. This is why am here anyways! As for the use of the term BS, I had already explained to the admin who looked at it that it was

accept the fact. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ

10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd alike to make a couple of minor additions and corrections to the above accounts:

• The content dispute (where the Falls is located) is complicated by real-world disputes over access to an island below the falls, and usage of water from the river. Sources relating to these disputes are often cited as evidence regarding the location of the Falls, although so far none of them address that question directly. Attempts to point this out to Naadapriya have
  fallen on deaf ears
  .
• My involvement: I am not an admin, merely an editor trying to help resolve a difficult issue. Apologies to anyone I may have mis-led. It was I who initiated the RfC about the location of the Falls. Unfortunately it did not get many responses, due perhaps to technical problems with the RfC system (or my own ineptitude).
• I have not gone so far to to say that I think Naadapriya is acting in bad faith. I have said that their contribs are now tending towards disruptive/tendentious, but (per my own interpretation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA) there's a difference between cause and effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on your position that counters the misinterpretation of your views by others, particularly wikiality123, is appreciated It is unfortunate you did not apply 'so far none of them address that question directly' to editors who are refusing to accept NPOV lead statement. I have listened to your views with good faith. Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Update on the user's recent editsI have pointed this out in the article page too

Naadapriya has come up with a proposal to change the lead which can be found here. Althouth the user called it for some reason Most accurate, WP:RS based, nonpolitical and unbiased NPOV Lead statement, as I shall show you below, not only that the user had failed to understand the meaning of RS and wasting other's time and energy, but also blatantly used references which do not claim anything what they have been used for.

• The first change was the sentence It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, but the citations shown[135] [136] [137] [138] doesn't even mention the word Chamarajanagar
  

• Next was to include the distance from the city of Chennai, which logically not a big problem, but the reference Naadapriya shows us didn't say it at all[139]
  
• Next sentence Naadapriya stated was near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills backed by this reference, but once again the citation has no content even in the subpages about this.
• Then the last sentence stating that Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls is once again the same story[140].

So basically the changes that Naadapriya proposed were backed by citations that doesn't claim so. This is indeed a case of delibrately misleading the reader. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers to above comments are posted in discussions of the article. It is requested to focus on ANI issue here if there is one and discuss technical issues in articles discussions. Otherwise it is waste of time to ADMNs.Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you still haven't justified using citations which don't state what you use it for as citations. I request an admin to attend to this as a matter of urgency, since we are just going in circles in the talk page of the article, with the progress almost to nill. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this on article's discussion page.Naadapriya (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation seems to be the way to go here. John Carter (talk

) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I shall go to mediation, but please make sure that Naadapriya is fine with that too. I don't want to hear from the user that I initiated Mediation without his/her consent. In case the user is not up for it, I reckon we have no other option than to stay in AN/I. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Prematurely it was taken to RFC which failed except for adhoc inputs from solicited parties to retain the current POV statement. It has disrupted the discussions and wasted time. Contradicting comments (sounding neutral but supporting POV) by so called invited ( solicited!!)3rd parties have further stalled the progress towards accuracy. It was dragged to AN/I with false accusations on Naadapriya and also skbhat just to stall the progress. Let the suggestion for mediation come from Admns who have objective views about the article otherwise AN/I is fine for now. I would continue in discussion till Admns suggest otherwise. Currently Admns have added tags as best solution which need to stay till POV and speculative infos are removed. BTW to ALL- What happened to discussions on AN\I page about use of BS by one editor. Am I looking at a wrong place. It is related to the article. Please restore if any one of you has removed it. If it can not be done then wikipedia's special help will be sought to restore it.Naadapriya (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I take that Naadapriya doesn't want it to be taken to Mediation. I think then it is best for an admin to look into this and decide. I am left with very little options. Sorry John Carter I did want to take your advice as you can see. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One should stop misinterpreting comments by others by selective responses. Advice from neutral party is needed not from solicited party to support current POV Naadapriya (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, as I mentioned on your talk page, I am moving on to mediation. The AN/I is going no where. Wasn't ShefeildSteel a neutral party? Reene a neutral party? Did you take their advice? Did I call ShefeildStreel or Reene? I will keep this reply from you for the record. I am moving on to mediation. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No one accept anyone as neutral party when they do not even agree on universal defination of border which belongs either both sides or a neutral third party. Biased comments speak to themselves. E. g . one editor started with make believe statement that Naadapriya trying to get 'upper hand' (It was in AN/I biut currently appeared have been deleted without notice). We need to wait for neutral parties (preferably Admns) who voluntarily participate. Till then tags are the best solution by Admn. Naadapriya (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have assumed that when you file an AN/I you would follow that up and see what is going on there. Anyways, the specific AN/I which you are accusing us of deleting is in the archives. Please do not modify archived stuff anyways. You do not find John Carter as a neutral party although he left messages in Karnataka project page about the ongoing discussion as well as Tamil Nadu project. Anyways, there is no use sitting here. I think it is best for us to find mediators to solve the crisis. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if this AN/I be revisited anytime in the future, a request for mediation has been filed here. I hope a resolution may soon be reached. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)